Apparently so. I thought that the arms and legs could be detached like the head, but apparently Bubbles chassis is one piece. It seems impractical considering what damage she could sustain even with the armor, but maybe she doesn't need seams. It's probably an advanced form of robot flesh that can possibly cut into and sealed up without leaving a scar.
From a logistics standpoint it makes perfect sense.
A durable yet compliant and mildly self repairing flexible covering to keep dust and other gunk out of joints and seals.
Damage could be field dressed with patches of the same material until proper repairs or change-outs can be made.
Adding my one point on the question on anatomy is more a question of psychology.
What would be in the uncanny valley zone of creepy otherness and what would be not enough that you would be in the alien among us zone of creepy?
I am not asking for specific answers but more as a thought experiment with regards to the military's original project mission statement.
We know that there are non-humanoid chassis ex Deathbot, that may or may not have been deployed so a humanoid tank is not likely when there are more efficient designs in the system. Mind you a humanoid is far more flexible for deployment in multiple roles even though they would not be as efficient in any one particular role compared to a dedicated system.
The other thing to keep in mind about the military when it comes to experimental systems, they like to play fast and loose with practicality when it comes to development projects.
Cyanoacrylates were originally developed as field sutures and now they are an ubiquitous commodity adhesive product in the consumer market.
So, in my roundabout way, we come to the core question that we can only speculate on an answer for is; what were the actual goals of the project for Bubbles and her chassis design?
1. There is no situation in which that comment is okay. I’m thinking brain diarrhea, because that goes beyond brain fart.
You have a way with painting images with words.
It is something that has gotten me in a bit of trouble at times.
Also, are AIs immortal? Do they face the same issue as Elves from Lord of the Rings -- doomed to watch humans they love slowly age and die? Are robot/human romances doomed to inevitable tragedy?
That all really depends on Jeph's latest iteration on what constitutes the core of an AI and just how durable it is over time.
Data without any self repair mechanisms will slowly corrupt over time, dependent on the storage media used.
At one time check bits was all we had and all that could do was raise a flag that "something" was wrong.
Now we have self repair algorythems that are as robust up to the size of the repair blocks generated. Anything larger and you lose the data.
But that is data. How resistant is the active "thingy" that is an AI to corruption and degradation?
Then again the same questions could be leveled at the human consciousness with just as much head-scratching and beer involved. -
Bruce