You are likely right that in the end regulation won't make much of a differenc. Indeed, there is too much incentive to cheat for individuals -- or for power-centers to accumulate more power by being the only ones to use something.

The proposal in the article also suggests outlawing open source software and data related to AI. Such laws may end any possible checks and balances on government, if governments -- or large corporations symbiotic with governments -- ultimately are the only one allowed to shape AI, and not individuals or small groups.

So what might make a difference? A broad perspective shift across the world towards "A Newer Way of Thinking" like Donald Pet, Buckminster Fuller, Albert Einstein, Lewis Mumford, Ursula K. Le Guin and others have suggested may make a difference. Our path coming out of any AI singularity may have a lot to do with our moral path going into one.

Donald Pet's work:
https://peace.academy/
"Donald Pet Releases Masterpiece: "Albert Einstein's Vision: A Clear Path to Global Harmony Through A Newer Way Of Thinking (ANWOT)"
https://www.webwire.com/ViewPr...
"Peace Academy By Donald Pet Video Trailer"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Also: "Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment. Humanity is in a final exam as to whether or not it might qualify for continuance in the Universe. (Utopia Or Oblivion: The Prospects for Humanity, R. Buckminster Fuller)"

As my sig suggests, the biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity. If we use AI from a scarcity-minded perspective emphasizing competition and self-centeredness instead of cooperation and compassion, we probably will doom ourselves. If we collectively use AI from an abundance perspective, we may still doom ourselves from excessive wealth concentration or rogue AI, but at least there is some hope that we might do better than that. See Marshall Brain's Manna story for two paths forward or see James P. Hogan's novels Two Faces of Tomorrow and Voyage from Yesteryear.

More by me on scarcity vs abundance thinking related to militarism but it applies to commerce as well since it is all intertwined in our society:
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...
"There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ...
      The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream."

Just noticed your reply, AC. These are great questions!

One the first, sci-fi shows several different models, but yes, cultural transitions can be awkward. I think Jams P. Hogan's Voyage From Yesteryear is a good depiction of how long people in power can resists the obvious and attempt to create artificial scarcity to prop up their social position (until there may be overwhelming pushback from lots of people in a Ghandi-esque way). Marshall Brain's Manna also explore that idea, but in that case there is a clear divide of those who own a share of a corporation that meets all their needs and many of their wants on a sort-of basic income basis (with the equivalent of replicator ration units / credits like in Star Trek Voyager). There can be a place for a "Kanban"-like system to signal need (even just emails or other messages). And universal basic income and varying prices (like in Marshall Brain's Manna) is a way to ration some things. Lawrence Lessig in Code 2.0 talks about how human behavior can be shaped by norms, rules, prices, and architecture, and I might expect all four of those would be adapted to support a post-scarcity worldview (including limits as needed, just like when people first got running water in cities they would leave the tap open like fountains and streams they were used to, but eventually it became a norm to turn the water on when you wanted it and off when you didn't.

On your second point, indeed it is true that abundances can create complementary scarcities. I wrote an essay on that in 2013:
https://pdfernhout.net/how-abu...
"It has been pointed out that abundances of some things can create complementary scarcities. For example, too many emails means too little attention for each one. Too many snowmobiles may mean too little quiet woods. Too many fusion power systems may mean too much heat pollution everywhere. An abundance of nanobots or biotechnology may mean no one can walk unprotected ever outside of air tight dwellings, making for a scarcity of convenience and nature. And abundance of cheap digital cameras and voice recorders makes for a scarcity of privacy, as does an abundance of computers to analyze and organize all that digital information. And so on. ...
      As for social inequality specifically from abundance, yes, it is true that some people may use the powers of abundance within any socio-political-economic system to consolidate power. Marshall Brain suggests that has been happening with automation, and it will only continue unless various structural changes are made (like a redistributive basic income, such as Social Security for all instead of just those over 65). ...
      There may be other ways that abundance creates problems too, no doubt, because it can connect to very specialized divisions of labor including bureaucracies, which, as systems, to put it charitably are "amoral". Organizations can behave in amoral ways regardless of the morality of the people who are the components who make up the system, since any "failing" component that does not perform to standards will just be replaced (Langdon Winner at RPI wrote about this in "Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought"). Yes, people can drag their feet (examples abound like in WWII Germany), but the system will still trundle along based on its own emergent organizational dynamics to the bitter end unless it meets some other system that stops it or it hits some sort of natural limit as it burns like a fire through that which sustains it (including the people that compose it). So, we have to be careful what values our systems embody, because the systems will serve as amplifiers of those values. ...
      Another way that abundances can create scarcities of self-control is "The Pleasure Trap", "Supernormal Stimuli", "The Acceleration of Addiction", and "The Tyranny of Choice" all resulting in "Ego Depletion". ...
      Hopefully we can use what computing power we have individually and collectively to think up and implement ways of dealing with all these challenges, like I suggest here:
"The need for FOSS intelligence tools for sensemaking etc." ..."

So, not a great answer to a great question, but remember that a lot of people will have a lot of free time to help deal with such issues. And also eventually at least the commercial motive to create problems for personal profit will recede. They might even have time to clean up the scientific literature from profit-oriented deceptions like ones I cite here related to peer review in general and also medical science in particular:
https://pdfernhout.net/to-jame...

The world wide web has billions of web pages and we now have search engines (and RSS feed readers) to help navigate those, as do directories of various sorts including Wikipedia. Granted, all search engines and directories may have their biases. But as computing capacity goes way beyond what is needed to index and store billions of web pages locally, people can easily get their basic informational needs met locally.

It is maybe increasingly hard to remember what the information world was like in the 1970s when I was a teenager -- where a dialup phone call to my high school's timeshare computer network cost me US$10 per hour (more like US$30 now) and there was little there to do besides playing a few text-based computer games, chatting with a handful of other users online, or writing a program file or maybe reading a very little online documentation or other text files. It was really hard to get information about any specific topic you might have an interest without physically traveling to a public library, and time there was limited, and so was the selection of books and resources to maybe a few tens of thousands of items (in a larger town library). Especially for any teenager before college, was difficult to get any information beyond what you were provided by someone else for their purposes (such as in school textbooks).

Now I could in theory store the equivalent of a town library of 10,000 books on a flash drive with a full text index. On a 20TB hard drive available for US$350, one can in theory store millions of books: https://forums.tomshardware.co...

Or essentially all of Wikipedia (without media):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Still not quite a personal copy of the Library of Congress though:
https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2009...

But still an enormous change from the 1970s. And more than enough to be able to learn the basics of almost any academic or technical subject at very little cost -- assuming that the information is reasonably complete and unbiased (which is may not be, to your point). And indexing all that information by at least keyword is now very easy with tools like Lucene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So, yes, spam is a problem. It greatly damaged email and contributed to the rise of walled garden social networks (which eventually had their own spam problems including from outrage-stoking algorithmic feeds provides by the social media companies). But, email still works. There are various groups of people who help deal with email spam including by creating new standards and encouraging people to use them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

In the book "Midas World" there is a story of people who help individuals who create huge problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
""The Man Who Ate the World" (originally published in Galaxy in 1956). Anderson Trumie had a scarring experience in his childhood, before Morey Fry changed the world. All Anderson wanted was a teddy bear, but his parents' lifestyle of frantic consumption did not allow him to have one. As an adult, he is a compulsive consumer. He has taken over North Guardian Island and is putting a burden on the local infrastructure. A psychist, Roger Garrick, with the help of Kathryn Pender, finds a way to heal Anderson and end his exorbitant consumption."

For an analogy today, where people may die from for-profit malware distributors -- and eventually there may be social processes (including law enforcement and international cooperation) to reduce that:
"Ransomware Attack Hampers Prescription Drug Sales at 90% of US Pharmacies (msn.com)"
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

So yes, there will be problems. But there will also be enormous capacity to deal with problems. And there will be (hopefully) an enormous cultural shift to preempt problems -- like, say, in the USA not many people would probably want to marry a human trafficker today compared to the early 1800s when slaveholding was a normal and accepted and profitable part of US culture and has since been greatly reduced in its most extreme forms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Human trafficking is condemned as a violation of human rights by international conventions, but legal protection varies globally. The practice has millions of victims around the world. ... According to scholar Kevin Bales, author of Disposable People (2004), estimates that as many as 27 million people are in "modern-day slavery" across the globe."

tl;dr: I can't disagree with your core point that there are challenges and lots of messiness in social change -- but thankfully there are billions of people who could provide solutions, since, as Julian Simon pointed out, the human imagination is the ultimate resource.
https://www.pop.org/overpopula...
http://www.juliansimon.com/wri...

All five are types of transactions various people engage in. Resources don't always have to come from exchange transactions. They can come from other types of transactions (with theft transactions hopefully minimized, where theft tends to happen when the social contract seems to break down for some people and leads to increasing security costs for everyone).

So one can ask how subsistence, gift, and planned transactions can support FOSS? Rather than emphasize only funding via, as you point out, monopoly rent-seeking as a form of artificial scarcity behind ever-larger parts of the exchange economy (and other types of dysfunctions).

A video I made on those types of transactions:
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."

Also on that issue from a gift and planned perspective::
"An Open Letter to All Grantmakers and Donors On Copyright And Patent Policy In a Post-Scarcity Society"
https://pdfernhout.net/open-le...
"Foundations, other grantmaking agencies handling public tax-exempt dollars, and charitable donors need to consider the implications for their grantmaking or donation policies if they use a now obsolete charitable model of subsidizing proprietary publishing and proprietary research. In order to improve the effectiveness and collaborativeness of the non-profit sector overall, it is suggested these grantmaking organizations and donors move to requiring grantees to make any resulting copyrighted digital materials freely available on the internet, including free licenses granting the right for others to make and redistribute new derivative works without further permission. It is also suggested patents resulting from charitably subsidized research research also be made freely available for general use. The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietary copyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as it results in a conflict of interest between a non-profit's primary mission of helping humanity through freely sharing knowledge (made possible at little cost by the internet) and a desire to maximize short term revenues through charging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights. In essence, with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible by the wide spread use of the internet, tax-exempt non-profits have become, perhaps unwittingly, caught up in a new form of "self-dealing", and it is up to donors and grantmakers (and eventually lawmakers) to prevent this by requiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants and donations."

Oh, true, where "fringe minority" means racists, fascists, misogynists, etc. And "unacceptable views" means hatred and intolerance. Right on, 100% true!

Perhaps those are 1000 million quantum bits (qubits)? And perhaps is just the memory used in KITT's main quantum processing cores, not actual medium or long-term storage?

https://www.technologyreview.c...
"Late last year [2022], IBM took the record for the largest quantum computing system with a processor that contained 433 quantum bits, or qubits, the fundamental building blocks of quantum information processing. Now, the company has set its sights on a much bigger target: a 100,000-qubit machine that it aims to build within 10 years. ... The idea is that the 100,000 qubits will work alongside the best "classical" supercomputers to achieve new breakthroughs in drug discovery, fertilizer production, battery performance, and a host of other applications."

If so, Knight Industries and KITT indeed were clearly decades ahead of even current commercial computing technology.
                                                                                                                      (-: ---#++-- :-)

Thanks for your insightful post. And people problems is why the biggest short term risk of AI and robotics is a few wealthy and powerful people using them to increase wealth inequality further, with destabilizing social effects (like Marshall Brain wrote about in Manna and Robotic Nation).

Here is some stuff I put together many years ago on similar themes, although my sig ("The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.") is the most important of all these ideas.

"The Richest Man in the World: A parable about structural unemployment and a basic income"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-...
"This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society.
      On sources, most of this content was written and organized by the author, but some resulted from a collaborative process on the Wikipedia Jobless Recovery article, and so the content is licensed similar to Wikipedia. See that article for attributions, although almost all this content was since deleted by advocates of mainstream economic theology. :-) While I tried to cite sources and be as neutral as possible, others disagreed. So, I am presenting this article on Google Knol so these ideas remain easily available to people. I have also added some inline YouTube videos related to the content. The ideas here were also refined indirectly through discussions about related issues on the Open Manufacturing mailing list, the p2presearch mailing list, and the Princeton University TigerNet alumni mailing lists, as well as in other places like Slashdot and various blogs. This article could also be seen as an outgrowth of Google's Project Virgle April Fool's joke which created some social connections (including to people involved with OpenVirgle and Open Manufacturing) and also inspired me to start putting up more content related to post-scarcity and social/technical change issues."

"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."

Text version someone of my presentation that someone else put up:
https://docslib.org/doc/690593...

Here is a recent short mainstream economics overview by someone else that covers some of the same initial ground, although essentially ignores gift and theft transactions and also ways to deal with problems:
"The 4 Types of Economies | Economics Concepts Explained | Think Econ"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

A satire (sort of, yet hopeful) on turning Princeton University into a post-scarcity institution:
https://www.pdfernhout.net/pos...
"Like Kurzweil, PU economists could start applying their skills to charting trends in the real basis of prosperity. They need to move beyond charting derived trends that are social constructions like fluctuations in fiat currency. They need to start admitting that as a fiat currency system breaks down with a transition to the emerging post-scarcity economy, dollars are no longer a very good way to measure things (if they ever were). They need to remember that currency is as arbitrary system related to a current economic control system which is rapidly becoming obsolete. Fiat dollars are essentially ration units, and rationing is becoming obsolete as part of the emerging post-scarcity society. For example, personal internet bandwidth use and server disk space are now so cheap as to be effectively "too cheap to matter" except in the most extreme cases for some small number of individuals. So, PU economists need to get back to basics and start charting real physically measurable (or estimateable) things. And then they need to think about the interrelations of those real things. Essentially, they can still use a lot of their old skills at analysis, but rather than apply them to one thing, money, they need to apply them to thousands of individual measurements of aspects of life-support and production. And the challenge will be in seeing how to make predictions about systems where these thousands of factors are difficult to interchange for each other (for example, topsoil depth versus sewing machine production). ...
    In general, economists need to look at what are major sources of *real* cost as opposed to *fiat* cost in producing anything. Only then can one make a complete control system to manage resources within those real limits, perhaps using arbitrary fiat dollars as part of a rationing process to keep within the real limits and meet social objectives (or perhaps not, if the cost of enforcing rationing for some things like, say, home energy use or internet bandwidth exceeds the benefits).
      Here is a sample meta-theoretical framework PU economists no doubt could vastly improve on if they turned their minds to it. Consider three levels of nested perspectives on the same economic reality -- physical items, decision makers, and emergent properties of decision maker interactions. (Three levels of being or consciousness is a common theme in philosophical writings, usually rock, plant, and animal, or plant, animal, and human.) ...
      What is more pressing in understanding a post-scarcity economy is seeing what real physical limits exist currently and how they could change over time. This requires examining physical production from first principles, since only when one understands the physical limits of a system does a discussion of various control systems and their strengths and weaknesses make sense. ..."

https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...
"There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all."

Other ideas I've collected on making healthier organizations within the economic framework we currently have:
https://github.com/pdfernhout/...

As I discuss here for militarism but applies as well to commercialism:
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...

That is also the idea in my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

To spell it out, AI is a technology of abundance. If people concerned about not having enough money to buy endless stuff use AI in a competitive spammy way -- disrupting healthy communications in the process by poisoning the web with deep fakes and so on -- the end results are likely to be unhappy for everyone. Same as how such people spammed email making it hard to communicated to bring about abundance for all, leading in part to walled gardens of social media platforms that were spam free at first and then became attention prisons with there own notion of spam.

Some related satire I wrote linked from the first page about a scarcity-obsessed Hitler confronted with a post-scarcity economy:
"A post-scarcity "Downfall" parody remix of the bunker scene"
https://groups.google.com/g/op...

Dialog of alternatively a military officer and Hitler:
MO: "It looks like there are now local digital fabrication facilities here, here, and here."
H: "But we still have the rockets we need to take them out?"
"The rockets have all been used to launch seed automated machine shops for self-replicating space habitats for more living space in space."
"What about the nuclear bombs?"
"All turned into battery-style nuclear power plants for island cities in the oceans."
"What about the tanks?"
"The diesel engines have been remade to run biodiesel and are powering the internet hubs supplying technical education to the rest of the world."
"I can't believe this. What about the weaponized plagues?"
"The gene engineers turned them into antidotes for most major diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, cancer, and river blindness."
"Well, send in the Daleks."
"The Daleks have been re-outfitted to terraform Mars. There all gone with the rockets."
"Well, use the 3D printers to print out some more grenades."
"We tried that, but they only are printing toys, food, clothes, shelters, solar panels, and more 3D printers, for some reason."
"But what about the Samsung automated machine guns?"
"They were all reprogrammed into automated bird watching platforms. The guns were taken out and melted down into parts for agricultural robots."
"I just can't believe this. We've developed the most amazing technology the world has ever known in order to create artificial scarcity so we could rule the world through managing scarcity. Where is the scarcity?"
"Gone, Mein Fuhrer, all gone. All the technologies we developed for weapons to enforce scarcity have all been used to make abundance."
"How can we rule without scarcity? Where did it all go so wrong? ... Everyone with an engineering degree leave the room ... now!"
[Cue long tirade on the general incompetence of engineers. :-) Then cue long tirade on how could engineers seriously wanted to help the German workers to not have to work so hard when the whole Nazi party platform was based on providing full employment using fiat dollars. Then cue long tirade on how
could engineers have taken the socialism part seriously and shared the wealth of nature and technology with everyone globally.]
"So how are the common people paying for all this?"
"Much is free, and there is a basic income given to everyone for the rest. There is so much to go around with the robots and 3D printers and solar panels and so on, that most of the old work no longer needs to be done."
"You mean people get money without working at jobs? But nobody would work?"
"Everyone does what they love. And they are producing so much just as gifts."
"Oh, so you mean people are producing so much for free that the economic system has failed?"
"Yes, the old pyramid scheme one, anyway. There is a new post-scarcity economy, where between automation and a a gift economy the income-through-jobs link is almost completely broken. Everyone also gets income as a right of citizenship as a share of all our resources for the few things that still need to be rationed. Even you."
"Really? How much is this basic income?"
"Two thousand a month."
"Two thousand a month? Just for being me?"
"Yes."
"Well, with a basic income like that, maybe I can finally have the time and resources to get back to my painting..."

The inflation would have to overcome the pressure, which is the weight of the water column on top of the payload. The deeper you go, the more water you need to "lift" to inflate the sacks.

I'm not sure if that math would add up, but it certainly is an interesting idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate was a written debate between Andrew S. Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds, regarding the Linux kernel and kernel architecture in general. Tanenbaum, the creator of Minix, began the debate in 1992 on the Usenet discussion group comp.os.minix, arguing that microkernels are superior to monolithic kernels and therefore Linux was, even in 1992, obsolete.[1] The debate has sometimes been considered a flame war.[2]"

This implementation language issue conundrum facing the Linux kernel is just one more reason why microkernels (or other layered approaches like VMs) make sense for reliability and flexibility. With a microkernel, the implementation language of 99% of the core underlying system (e.g. device drivers) is a non-issue as far as the kernel maintainers are concerned.

See also "Simple Made Easy":
https://www.infoq.com/presenta...
"Rich Hickey emphasizes simplicity's virtues over easiness', showing that while many choose easiness they may end up with complexity, and the better way is to choose easiness along the simplicity path."

The Linux kernel is ultimately a dead-end because it is too complex as a single entity. That makes it much more likely to fail catastrophically for society (e.g. a widespread computer virus) than it otherwise needs to be if the core was simpler and most functionality (e.g. drivers) was outside the kernel. Prioritizing speed in the Linux kernel by the monolithic design essentially deprioritizes reliability and security. We are decades past when that priority makes sense given hardware speed advances for most use cases (and where dedicated hardware or GPU use and so on makes sense when speed really matters, stuff running outside a kernel). And that old priority also means all the increasing time and effort that goes into dealing with Linux security risks (e.g. constant updates) is not time available to actually optimize performance of a microkernel and associated drivers and applications (or advancing hardware design).

Example:
"Understanding Linux kernel vulnerabilities"
https://link.springer.com/arti...
"Protecting the Linux kernel from malicious activities is of paramount importance. Several approaches have been proposed to analyze kernel-level vulnerabilities. Existing studies, however, have a strong focus on the attack type (e.g., buffer overflow). In this paper, we report on our analysis of 1,858 Linux kernel vulnerabilities covering a period of Jan 2010-Jan 2020. We classify these vulnerabilities from the attacker's view using various criteria such as the attacker's objective, the targeted subsystems of the kernel, the location from which vulnerabilities can be exploited (i.e., locally or remotely), the impact of the attack on confidentiality, system integrity and availability, and the complexity level associated with exploiting vulnerabilities. Our findings indicate the presence of a large number of low-complexity vulnerabilities. Most of them can be exploited from the local system, leading to attacks that can severely compromise the kernel quality of service, and allow attackers to gain privileged access"

Almost 2000 vulnerabilities over the past decade due to the kernel being a monolithic design.

tl;dr This debate should be about kernel architecture not kernel implementation language.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
"Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were a dim memory. ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"In 1980 Winner proposed that technologies embody social relations, i.e. power.[2] To the question he poses "Do Artifacts Have Politics?", Winner identifies two ways in which artifacts can have politics. The first, involving technical arrangements and social order, concerns how the invention, design, or arrangement of artifacts or the larger system becomes a mechanism for settling the affairs of a community. This way "transcends the simple categories of 'intended' and 'unintended' altogether", representing "instances in which the very process of technical development is so thoroughly biased in a particular direction that it regularly produces results heralded as wonderful breakthroughs by some social interests and crushing setbacks by others" (Winner, p. 25-6, 1999). It implies that the process of technological development is critical in determining the politics of an artifact; hence the importance of incorporating all stakeholders in it. (Determining who the stakeholders are and how to incorporate them are other questions entirely.)
      The second way in which artifacts can have politics refers to artifacts that correlate with particular kinds of political relationships, which Winner refers to as inherently political artifacts (Winner, p. 22, 1999). He distinguishes between two types of inherently political artifacts: those that require a particular sociological system and those that are strongly compatible with a particular sociological system (Winner, p. 29, 1999). A further distinction is made between conditions internal to the workings of a given technical system and those that are external to it (Winner, p. 33, 1999). This second way in which artifacts can have politics can be further articulated as consisting of four 'types' of artifacts: those requiring a particular internal sociological system, those compatible with a particular internal sociological system, those requiring a particular external sociological system, and those compatible with a particular external sociological system."

Surprised no one mentioned it yet: https://www.lazarus-ide.org/
"Lazarus is a Delphi compatible cross-platform IDE for Rapid Application Development. It has variety of components ready for use and a graphical form designer to easily create complex graphical user interfaces. ... You can create your own open source or commercial applications. With Lazarus you can create file browsers, image viewers, database applications, graphics editing software, games, 3D software, medical analysis software or any other type of software. ... Lazarus has a huge community of people supporting each other. It include scientists and students, pupils and teachers, professionals and hobbyists. Our wiki provides tutorials, documentation and ideas. Our forums and mailing-list offer a space to ask questions and talk to users and the developers."

It is a cross-platform system that has been around for over twenty years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Anyway, circa 1996-2000, I co-developed (with my wife) three applications in Delphi Pascal (a garden simulator, a text-adventure authoring tool, and a 3D botanical plant creation tool). Earlier versions were done in C++ and also Smalltalk. For the time, Delphi has much faster compiles than C++. And in general Object Pascal was easier to work with than C++, especially for my wife who had learned Pascal in school but did not know C well. And Smalltalk applications back then were problematical to distribute including due to run-time fees. Links to those three applications are here, with source on my GitHub site.
https://www.kurtz-fernhout.com...

I had been looking at Lazarus in its early years to port that code from Windows to Linux, but ultimately I never pursued that approach.

I ported one of those programs a few years ago to TypeScript. I prefer using a language with garbage collection when possible. I used a conversion tool I wrote to do some of the heavy lifting by parsing the Delphi code, but there was also a lot of hand editing involved. I never release the source for the tool because I was not sure of the licensing for the Delphi grammars I adapted. Some changes were also needed to the UI to map easily onto a web page.
https://github.com/pdfernhout/...
https://github.com/pdfernhout/...

I hope to port the other two applications to TypeScript someday as well. But, I still might consider just porting them to Lazarus which is a much easier lift than such a port -- especially now that Lazarus can generate applications for the web.
https://wiki.lazarus.freepasca...

All that said, given Squeak's emergence, I kinda wish I had stuck with Smalltalk for those projects, especially as my wife liked it. Or alternatively, maybe just soldiered on with C or C++ given its portability and prevalence and continued improvements too (which opens up other opportunities). Or even just get really good at Forth? :-)

Delphi was nicer than C++ and faster than Smalltalk, but it is risky and usually limiting to tie your projects to a single vendor's proprietary language and libraries. Lazarus changed the game on that though for Delphi eventually too though, but Lazarus took years to get really good -- and in the meantime Java improved and then JavaScript/TypeScript improved (both of which I ended up doing a lot of coding in).

Anyway, great now to have many good choices nowadays (including for many other languages) of free software development systems that are cross-platform.

Our company blocked Firefox and Chrome from running "for security". Stuck with Edge. :-/

How much of that is going on in corporate IT offices?

ChatGPT "I want you to write the lyrics to The Song That Doesn't End, all the way to the end."