Evolution always applies because of random mutations, and the fact that all 8billion of us have not yet mated with the remaining 4billion or so. We have no idea what comes of that.

Add in causal mutations, meaning the introductions of new pressures on DNA. Microplastics in life comes to mind. Add increased radiation by harming or altering the atmosphere that serves as our shield from certain death.

Selective bacteria, viruses, microRNA, enter the picture.

We might evolve, but we always mutate; except for clone humans, we're 100% the combination of two trees of life merging, your mother and father. Currently, we have no other selective medium to alter the combo. Yes, CRISPR and other technologies can be introduced. Selective zygote assays as a filtration mechanism. Never marry that (fill in the blank of undesired pseudo-tribe).

Weaker might be better; it's surmised that survivors of Bubonic Plague had their own weaknesses that became selective strength. Of those that have celiac-related diseases naturally didn't eat contaminated bread-- and there was a LOT OF THAT. Or those that survived mild/dairy-borne diseases.

Evolution doesn't stop; evolution is a subjective determination. Mutation is the objective observation.

For all history we have functioned without this.

We have a right of association, and not to incriminate ourselves, for roughly 228 years in the USA, depending on how you want to cite case law on the Bill of Rights.

We still have those rights.

Is that your old friend from HS? GO ask

You sit behind pseudoanonyimity with your sabeede "screen name" account on website where you can be outed.

In theory, this requires a warrant, and probable cause, among other tests. Maybe that person from HS doesn't want to be identified, especially BY YOU.

This is the Pandora's Box of the panopticon: Kleptocracy (not democracy) for the masses. Now everyone can redistribute.

Go ahead, walk into that locker room. Do your upskirt shots. Walk into that nudist camp or even gay bathhouse.

See that screen in the doctor's office? Maybe that tax return. Sealed court order?

How about that flab in the mirror? Maybe that scar.

These aren't SmartGlasses, whether Meta or Apple, these are the tech bros whittling away at your privacy and liberty-- for profit.

By a human, from memory, or by a random human, who may or may not be tied to "the government"?

Which one is Big Brother?

Choose your answer carefully.

Property rights are ephemeral, but tangible assets do indeed exist.

As regards your sense of right to association, free speech, and more, there is a long battle we can fight.

My stance is you assert certain privacy invasions; I believe that human dignity has as a component, anonymity. Is dignity in us Constitution? Law school could help you understand where dignity, liberty, and freedom reign, and what parts of the Bill of Rights apply, and how.

I continue my stance that racing to the cloud to identify me on the street is a bridge too far.

See the other link, please, in the post, repeated here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/0...

That doesn't meet the smell test.

You can elect to be on Facebook. FACEbook.

Or you can elect to never go there.

On the street, you must travel, or your are jailed in your location, enslaving you. Actual freedom means walking down the street, going into a store, driving, biking, whatever.

Liberty dictates you have freedom of movement and association. It doesn't mean you can look up any random individual and drill through who/what they are. In public and private places, the Fifth Amendment applies, also unreasonable search and seizure, no matter who does it, government or not.

The Meta glasses are an onerous extension of cloud-based profile lookups and matching. Identity and privacy are dignity. Meta glasses remove that privacy, and any remaining shred of dignity.

The problem with the vast amount of hardware turf that Microsoft covers is different from say, Apples, because Apple highly controls their hardware platforms, and Microsoft by its nature, cannot.

Add in driver components, software legacies, and Microsoft users continue to pay this tax, generation after generation. So indeed these issues ARE similar.

When Oracle updates key functionality, they risk a domino effect, just as Microsoft does. The QA feedback loop can help, but all old code must become crusty because of physics. Reinventing the core code then causes its own ripple effects.

There are ways to fight this, at the risk of business partners going away-- the hardware makers and software vendors with huge installed bases.

Every time a change is made, it would be wonderful to do regression testing. That's why there are "insider" programs, the little beta site for these changes because regression testing today is impossible because the installation platforms are too diffuse.

There is truth in the aphorism, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall.".

Have you ever noticed why no one celebrates Patch Tuesday in the pub? It's because they're waiting by consoles waiting for stuff to break.

Windows, client and server, are a house of cards. This goes far back in history. The citations you challenge are each provably wrong. Ever wonder why the cloud isn't rife with Windows servers? There's a reason for that. Cloud Native Windows is almost an oxymoron. Linux and to a lesser extent, BSD, have taken over that space.

In so many ways, Windows is now a legacy data OS in data centers and for good reason. It's developer community has all but collapsed. It's backwards compatibility with other house-of-cards platforms like dot-net have put ball-and-chains around its neck.

The additions of tawdry pre-release-in-production AI with Co-Pilot causes new train wrecks each and every day.

No serious services developer uses Windows as a new development platform. The metaphors you diss are a dodge. You know exactly what the remarks are about. Windows continues to be a sieve for security. Linux and BSD are far more difficult to breach, correctly configured-- and it doesn't take much.

As a developer, if you are one, Microsoft is putting you to the pasture. Have fun eating oats.

Grok was constantly say it was doing something that it had ZERO ability to, and I kept calling it out and it kept apologizing and then immediately doing it again.

As a guy who spend 5 figures a year on Ai, the last thing I want is that. I know Claude and ChatGPT also do it, but Grok was doing it CONSTANTLY.

And rightfully so, IMHO. The IA has legitimate goals for fair-use, but I don't think that fair use extends to bulk copying of an archive and for profit.

It's also my belief that the Internet makes it really convenient for outright theft of other intellectual property.

You can't have it both ways; kleptocracy is evil.

I know who the maintainers are and what their responsibilities and trajectories are. While no one was looking (Linus), lots of diverse platforms became supported. Provisions were made for both very progressive (if often never ever ever used) modularity.

On the app side, an enormous number of apps found their way inside, often stuff that users (remember users?) didn't ask for but they got The Big Gulp anyway.

I indeed wrote operating systems before Linus Torvalds was born. Wrote in Byte about Linux long ago. Watched a ton of operating systems grow and fail for want of a practical purpose or momentum.

I've surfed the wave of FOSS and Linux (and various BSD) developments for a long time. I have an engineers sense of less is better, and that attack surface involves anchoring unmaintained yet still distributed JUNK into fun attacks. Or watching users (remember users?) become dogged by sheer inode displacement.

Distros don't use Darwin as their set of choices, or even public demand for their content choices. They simply shovel in stuff. More is better. This policy is provably a poor choice.

The relationship between enabling interesting stuff in the kernel and the bloat of distribution apps is highly intertwined. The kernel and app payload enable each other.

Philosophically and relating this to the OP, bloat is bad. It eventually serves too many at the price of integrity and TCO.

Bullshit.

The kernel is built around features, resources, and libs that will touch it within the kernel. This 100% disciplines the "features" that distros shove in, often with seeming hydraulic pressure, into distributions.

Yes, it's a "Swiss Army Knife" with incredible flexibility. And it is a blimp. Then there are untold lib bloats to feed edge case use of distributions. It's my contention that you could slice the entire beast in half and still have great functionality for the bell-curve use cases.

I watch kernel development. There is so much goo inside the kernel that it no longer floats, it sinks under its own weight, and drowns the OS with barnacles and lead.

Like other seemingly simple solutions, this one is wrong.

The major distros have become unbelievably bloated, with Ubuntu leading the pack. LinuxMint needs ozempic in the worst possible way.

The kitchen-sink approach is just wrong and increases attack surface, while those having no choice but older hardware with fewer resources have to cringe.

Although lightweight versions are possible, the sheer sprawl of inodes has become ridiculous. No OS should need a half-million files installed from core executables and libs and sheer goo.

If you have to use W11, it's one more thing to add to your scrape script. This is a sorry last-ditch attempt to make Xbox relevant again. Easy scrape and joins the piles of crapware that doesn't belong in an operating system.

And Linux distros could go on a diet, too. Hey Linus, it's getting FAT.