Enforcement is the real issue, not the specific red lines, regardless of what Anthropic claims and news outlets repeat.

Verification requires access to classified logs. These logs would attract the spies of the whole world. Even if these logs are in principle for "past actions", in practice past logs (for war games, for example) would compromise future strategy.

Since these manual audits are too risky, the only alternative is to hard-code limits into the AI. But are we ready trust an AI to "judge" a mission and refuse to execute during a crisis?

Anthropic wanted technical enforcement, the Pentagon wanted trust.

It’s a choice between two bad options: an unaccountable military and an unreliable AI kill switch. They are both very dangerous, just in different ways.

From the actual paper ( https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adu8349 ):

"All measurements were performed at 20° ± 0.2°C maintained by an air circulation system unless otherwise noted. The temperature of the films was controlled using a heating/cooling unit (THMS350V, Linkam Scientific Instruments, Salfords, UK) when necessary."

So the latent heat is conducted away by the cooling apparatus, it's just not explicitly stated, to sound more sensational.

Focusing solely on taxes misses the point that most people do not fully utilize "included" baggage allowances on domestic trips, and that is pure profit.

Let's assume a $40 bag fee: $25 cost to handle the bag, $3 tax, $12 profit.

If people pay for the bags separately, in addition to their $220 ticket, they will only pay for utilized bags, so for 1 bag, the profit will be $12.

If the $300 ticket bundle includes 2 allowed bags, but people only check 1 bag, then the profit is: $80 - 2$6 (tax) - 1$25 (cost) = $49 profit, more than 4 times bigger!

The real reason is the comparison sites as the HN commenters pointed out, but the result is not always bad, because the savings is real in many cases as people indeed would only pay for one bag on average ($220+$40 = $260) instead of $300.

I think airlines are much less happy with the separated fees than consumers, but once one airline does it, the others are forced to do it. The same happened with the international trips, which clearly has no tax reason. Many years ago it included 2 pieces of 70-pound bags, then 2 50-pound bags, then 1 50-pound bag, and now in many cases, on basic tickets, nothing at all.

Practically the whole world educates doctors with a 6-year program straight out of high school, out of which 6 years are relevant to medical education, instead of the 8 years in the US, out of which 4 are barely relevant to medical education.

The real question is why the insurance companies are pushing the annual exams very hard, not just in consumer ads, but using lots of incentives for primary care physicians.

One would assume they would not want to pay for unnecessary tests for healthy people.

So either their own research shows they save money with annual checkups in spite of what the article says, or more sinisterly, they do want to spend money to be able to justify higher premiums, because in several states they are required to spend around 80% of the premiums, and this is one easily plannable way.

Does anyone know? Perhaps someone working for an insurance company?