But also at that speed it'd only be in the atmosphere for a couple seconds; even at that high temp it may not have been able to transfer all that energy into the manhole cover. The energy may have just gone into ablating away the surface.

But it probably ablated away the whole mass of the manhole cover.

Dogger butt.

Streaming, I imagine. It's still around, though.

Who isn't???

Did they die together?
This seems like a difficult tombstone to update later.

Or is it the same person but young/old?

Tbf some fields of study seem to be asking for it. I'm looking at you economics; when was the last time you produced a model that described the real world rather than produced a justification for economic policy?

I can independently verify this.

Not only the pollution.

It has triggered an economic race to the bottom for any industry that can incorporate it. Employers will be forced to replace more workers with AI to keep prices competitive. And that is a lot of industries, especially if AI continues its growth.
The result is a lot of unemployment, which means an economic slowdown due to a lack of discretionary spending, which is a feedback loop.

There are only 3 outcomes I can imagine:

1. AI fizzles out. It can't maintain its advancement enough to impress execs.
2. An unimaginable wealth disparity and probably a return to something like feudalism.
3. social revolution where AI is taken out of the hands of owners and placed into the hands of workers. Would require changes that we'd consider radically socialist now, like UBI and strong af social safety nets.

The second seems more likely than the third, and I consider that more or less a destruction of humanity

Poe's Law is hitting hard in these comments, but for good reason I suppose.

Then they shouldn't try to both-sides the argument.

Nobody is defending Biden. He is just less evil than Trump, and far less of a risk to what little democracy remains. The bar is on the floor.

I might actually agree with ballot spoiling if one of the candidates wasn't actively trying to replace democracy, and also teaching other populist extremist leaders around the world how to do the same there.

You're simply making more bad faith arguments. The post was clearly hyperbole, but using violence is probably a reasonable response to actual fascism.

You can't "both sides" this. Both sides are evil, but one side is an existential threat to democracy. One side has demonstrated its not going to play by the rules and is fine breaking the norms that many checks and balances relied on.
On one side some voters are extreme. On the other side, some politicians are extreme.
One side has already tried to undermine democracy and actually met with some success and no repercussions.

It's not the same, and to call it the same is done in bad faith.