Most of your list could be "produced at home" by most people. Tea and Coffee are the largest problem on the list, but the only reason is geographic and not "processing" related. I'm pretty sure you know that, though, and are being purposefully obtuse for some reason.
I do consider taxation theft, there is no purpose to it except for controlling the population. The fact that people accept different *levels* of theft depending on how much money they make just proves how much of theft it is, because they more money someone makes, the fewer people there are in that category of people, given that, it is easier to structure theft in such a way as to convince the majority that they don't suffer as much as the other people, who are hit with a much bigger crime.
That's still fixable. Just like how most computers are air cooled and not water cooled. They could build a very large air cooling tower and not need water at all.
Cooling from cheap to expensive:
1. Take in water, return water some amount hotter. Requires the most water to limit temperature rise.
2. Take in water, evaporate some of the water in a cooling tower. Results in less water, but also takes less water and controls temperature rise better
3. Dry cooling.
Most systems are actually something of a hybrid of the three.
There's yet one more problem (among many): Cryogenic freezing doesn't prevent ice crystals from forming, shattering cell membranes.
Basically, the body is mush where it is critical for it not to be for a successful resuscitation.
Has anything actually stored hashes in
You can also run your own server on someone else's server.
"Yo, dawg..."
If you are a programmer and you are given clear instructions on what is expected, then yes. If you are a programmer and you are not given clear instructions, then no. However if you are technical lead/architect then you really should be responsible for it.
OTOH if you are a programmer and you raise these concerns then you are on your way to become a technical lead/architect.
In my systems I insist we keep a database table of various common passwords (tens of thousands of these) and we do not allow people using them as well.
Much as I agree with you from a moral standpoint, from a legal standpoint it is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.
If you want to make the argument that "data about you" is "your data" that's fine, but the presumption here is that it's the airline's data, and it is offering it freely (as in speech, not as in beer) to the government. Where is the fourth amendment implication? It is not your "house, person, papers, or effects," it is the airline's and they're happy to let the government sort through it.
Tell the airlines that you are traveling overseas for a medical procedure... then privacy is covered by HIPAA.
Sigh. No it isn't. The airline is not a provider of medical services, it is not regulated by HIPAA.
While I agree that this is not something I want the government to be doing, what part of a database maintained by the airlines constitutes your person, house, papers, or effects? If the government demands access that would be one thing, but if the airlines say "hey, wanna buy our data?" and the government says "hell yeah" that is something else.
I found GP2.5 to be great at academic-style research and writing; it was absolutely awful at writing code. So; I would tell it to plan some thing for me and write it in a way that could be used by another agent (Claude Code) to build the code to do the thing. In this way, it has been great! I haven't yet attempted it with 3.
That said, I found GP3.0's page to be hilarious:
It demonstrates PhD-level reasoning with top scores on Humanityâ(TM)s Last Exam (37.5% without the usage of any tools) and GPQA Diamond (91.9%). It also sets a new standard for frontier models in mathematics, achieving a new state-of-the-art of 23.4% on MathArena Apex.
It then proceeds to show, lower down on the page, an example of what it can do, by showing off 'Our Family Recipes". If there's anything that touts PhD-level reasoning and writing, it's a recipe book.
It is like saying: someone will do some work for free, because they like it, lets then make sure that we take away the product of their work, they don't need it anyway. How is that a moral stance, how is it good economically? People feel a certain way if someone tries to steal from them. One thing is to work, even if you don't have to, but to understand that the result of your work is yours. It is a completely different proposition to enslave someone just because they can survive without keeping the results of their work. Practically speaking, if someone sees this type of attitude, they choose a different jurisdiction to do their work, where there won't be such blatant abuse.
I disagree with this approach because I am against theft. Whatever an individual can create for himself is his to do with as he desires, not anyone else. I don't understand this sentiment, is there anything in it except for envy?
Hold on to the root.
