I guessed you were thinking nukes. They do pose a risk in space, but it's not intuitive to neither understate or overstate it.
A nuke generates a high pressure shockwave, emits a concentrated blast of particles, and an EM pulse:
There is no air in space for a pressure shockwave to form, so that's a non-issue
While it blasts particles at high speed, we already have a high speed nuclear explosion source of particles: the Sun. Satellites are shielded against that, or they wouldn't last a day.
The EMP is more concentrated than normal EM variations around the Earth, but the effects depend on the length of a conductor, its orientation in the EM field, and the distance from the source: a 500Km long power line wire is more likely to end up with a potential differential that might fry it, than a 0.1Km wide satellite. The intensity of the pulse at 35,000Km, would be 4900 times lower than at 500Km, so a nuke at mid LEO would not be likely to impact geostationary satellites, or vice versa.
At LEO, an average sized nuke could wreak havoc with a bunch of satellites, and fry power lines on the ground. Most electronic devices however, have some kind of case shielding them, particularly the most EM sensitive parts like radios. Cell tower antennas would be more exposed, so that could be a problem. Fiber is completely unaffected, so the backbone of internet would go on as usual. Data centers... it would depend; some are built out in the open, others in nuclear shelters.
A more uncertain aspect, would be the impact on Van Allen belts. They're full of highly energetic particles from the Sun, that everyone tries to avoid as much as possible. A longer shift and exposure to a stream of particles, could take down some satellites.
Another aspect to consider, is that fusion explosions have no theoretical upper bound. With the technology we have, it's hard to make them smaller (so the issue with fusion power production), but there is no upper bound, all the way to the Sun and beyond. Someone potentially "could" create a planet killer... but they better be on another planet (or the Moon) when it goes off.
From a "conventional" point of view, placing nukes in orbit has the issue that it shortens delivery times to less than half: instead of "launch, ascent, travel, descent" it becomes a simple "wait until it's in position, descent". Nations might want to preemptively strike that kind of satellites.
GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, are separate constellations for geolocation and time synchronization, located at around 20,000Km
Geostationary TV and radio transceivers, weather and geosurvey satellites, at around 35,000Km
Spy and surveillance satellites at eccentric orbits
LEO satellites, telescopes, space stations, StarLink and friends, at up to 1200Km
Given the distance-squared rule, it's hard to imagine a large disruption to most satellites, particularly the ones on higher orbits.
Cellphones depend very weakly on satellites, just for a rough geolocation estimate and maybe time sync. Otherwise, they depend on cell towers, and are using WiFi hotspot data for precise location. Car navigation could be impacted, in phones that wouldn't support any of the geolocation constellations left.
Internet, 4/5G, and WiFi, are 99.99% terrestrial, even in remote areas.
Weather predictions would definitely get impacted, the terrestrial predictions based on patterns and radar, is what gave us semi-random estimates 40 years ago.
Air traffic is incoporating GPS services, but doesn't fully deprecate VOR, ILS, magnetic, visual, or even celestial navigation.
TV dishes are pointed at geostationary satellite groups, they're far away and hard to impact... except when it's raining or snowing. A good layer of thunderstorm clouds can wreak havoc with Sat TV, both at the emitter and the receiver.
Spy satellites are the least likely to get impacted by anything, they are more likely to have good shielding and weird orbits.
There is no realistic way of avoiding those doctors. I've been to a GP who, after looking at my medical history and the meds I was taking after a heart attack... slid me a business card for her homeopathic healing practice. 🙄
Still, I'd hope a majority of doctors would be more likely to be able to parse through an AI's advice, and take it into consideration, but not blindly depend on it, when giving their own advice.
Targeting it at GPs makes sense, since they're supposed to "know of everything", but no person is capable of doing that, definitely not of staying up to date on everything. Specialists have a narrower area of knowledge to keep up with, but could also benefit from some AI advice based on latest research.
EVs are a stepping stone towards getting rid of fossil fuels, which is another stepping stone towards "saving the Earth". Going back, puts us farther away from the goal.
It's like in the joke: "What do you call someone who barely finished medical school?... Doctor."
Every doctor is allowed to provide medical advice, even those who should better shut up. Liabilities are like what a friend got after a botched operation, when confronting her doctor: "Sue me, that's what my insurance is for".
I'd like to see the actual final assessment of an AI on these tests, but if it's just "9% vs 15% error rate", I'd take it.
My guess would be the AI might not be great at all kinds of assessments, but having a panel of specialized AIs, like we now have multiple specialist cooperating, sounds like a reasonable idea. Having a transcript of such meeting analyzed by a GP, could be even better.
That wouldn't protect him. Only 25% of world gold production has a practical use, the rest is turned into jewelry and bullion at a speculative value. Buying some is also not that straightforward, most is sold as an IOU, with the physical stuff remaining in the original owner's vault.
We live in a world where fiat/credit rules everything; the moment trust is lost, there is no difference between Tesla shares, Zimbabwean dollars, $Trump, USD... or bullion IOUs.
Flow is somewhat weird, kind of "unexplained mystic voyage, with a kitty". But the animation has a very consistent style through and through, and is a nice visual experience with surprisingly engaging characters.
Like every good billionaire, he's been playing the stock game by taking on loans and exchanging stock, based on valuation (aka: hype). If the valuation plummets, then depending on his exposure, he could default on those loans and end up penniless.
We don't know his exposure level, he's been avoiding anything that would require disclosing all his assets and liabilities, so we'll have to wait and see.
Dunno, seeing how DOGE/Musk have been shutting stuff down and firing people in bulk, then scrambling to restore those that/who turn out to be necessary, it seems like par for the course.
Relaxation of anti-cyberatrack measures, could also play a role.
The mere presence of Vance, the TASS reporter who got expelled at the last moment, the stupid question about not wearing a suit, the comments about discussing stuff "behind closed doors" instead of "in front of the cameras"... they all make the interpretation plausible. It gets compounded by the latest draft of the agreement being nothing like what Trump had been screaming about.
IMHO, it looks like Trump wanted to reenact his interpretation of the negotiation process in front of the cameras to make himself look great, but Zelensky didn't want to take part in the charade.
There is baseless FUD, and there is reasonable loss of trust. This one seems to have a reasonable explanation, but actions will speak louder. We'll see.
I've been using fondleslabs for a long time, and based on early experience:
Nexus One - 3.7" display, too small to be practical
Galaxy Nexus - 4.6" display, better but still small
Nexus 7 - 7" display, sweet spot ✅
Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 - 10.1" display, cool tablet, too huge to hold
I used to spend more time with the Nexus 7 than any other device.
Nowadays, a Galaxy A35 has a 6.6" display, which is pretty close to the "sweet spot". While I can't comfortably hold it with one hand by itself, a Magsafe case and a PopSocket, let me hold it in multiple ways (a Qi charging addon under the case, allows wireless charging while protecting the USB port, without spending four times as much on an S series).
I'm not surprised at all that flagships are converging towards 7" displays. Smaller phones are for special use cases, like some ruggedized models.
For now, trifold are a gimmick, the screens break and the hinges get full of dust.
It's yet to be seen whether a trifold can be made into a similar folded size as a non-fold phone with similar capabilities, but even then... the resulting unfolded phone would need to be about 1/3rd the thickness of a normal phone, which is a lot to ask; by the time the technology is there, normal phones will be 1/3rd thinner too, so a trifold will again seem "clunky".
Backpack phones, is what we call "laptops" nowadays, some come with 2 extra monitors, or you can add them as an accessory.
Android phones can run regular Linux via Termux, and starting with Android 16 they'll come with a regular Linux VM with GPU acceleration support.
I guessed you were thinking nukes. They do pose a risk in space, but it's not intuitive to neither understate or overstate it.
A nuke generates a high pressure shockwave, emits a concentrated blast of particles, and an EM pulse:
At LEO, an average sized nuke could wreak havoc with a bunch of satellites, and fry power lines on the ground. Most electronic devices however, have some kind of case shielding them, particularly the most EM sensitive parts like radios. Cell tower antennas would be more exposed, so that could be a problem. Fiber is completely unaffected, so the backbone of internet would go on as usual. Data centers... it would depend; some are built out in the open, others in nuclear shelters.
A more uncertain aspect, would be the impact on Van Allen belts. They're full of highly energetic particles from the Sun, that everyone tries to avoid as much as possible. A longer shift and exposure to a stream of particles, could take down some satellites.
Another aspect to consider, is that fusion explosions have no theoretical upper bound. With the technology we have, it's hard to make them smaller (so the issue with fusion power production), but there is no upper bound, all the way to the Sun and beyond. Someone potentially "could" create a planet killer... but they better be on another planet (or the Moon) when it goes off.
From a "conventional" point of view, placing nukes in orbit has the issue that it shortens delivery times to less than half: instead of "launch, ascent, travel, descent" it becomes a simple "wait until it's in position, descent". Nations might want to preemptively strike that kind of satellites.
For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime