Agreed: The first one is a policy based on real economic reality. The second one is an unsupported conspiracy theory which ignores the reality that US companies that do the exact same thing.

You are 100% correct.

For human interactions, the LLM seems random not only because most interfaces set the temperature to a nonzero value, but also because seemingly irrelevant changes such as spacing or punctuation will change the LLM output.

allo literally defined it in the post:

Just like what happened when the US government purchased GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac?
(I actually agree with your points, but this reply is the obligatory counter to your post and needs to be addressed.)

The US typically approaches this by purchasing the products from the companies, or using trade pressure to make another country purchase products from them -- rather than by buying them out. The US government isn't talking about buying ExxonMobil, Raytheon, Boeing, etc. This is definitely weird.

As everyone in that reddit thread pointed out, that quiz is about fascism not socialism. The open debate is: Does the author of that reddit post not know the difference, or are they intentionally confusing the two as a form of misdirection? The post has merit even though it mislabels things.

I sometimes use it to archive especially insightful conversation on reddit. ...yeah it is a rare event, but it does sometimes happen. *casts furtive glance around Slashdot*

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes that number. It's called the employment-to-population ratio. Since there many different opinions on how to interpret the data, the BLS publishes it every which way. Most press reports what is called the U-3 number because most economists agree that it is the most useful one.

This has happened to many a developer over the years because the shell scripting languages ignore errors. No AI required.
cd /
cd $targetdir # Oops! Targetdir doesn't exist!
rm -rf * # Deletes files from root directory

Somewhere between 1 and 3.

Those are the kinds of moments where the population finds out if their nation is truly democratic or not. Any government that decides that turning off the ability to communicate is not doing so for the benefit of its people.

It's standard operating procedure in dictatorships to flip the "internet kill switch" as soon as something happens where the government needs to control the media.

Oh, and just to add one more thing . Some network protocols just fundamentally can't work under NAT. Ex: FTP. So party of the reason this seems to worn is because we changed the way we design protocols to be NAt compatible. That's dumb. The Internet should just work.

I work for a company that makes large industrial machines. Some of the machines are, themselves, networks. They have motors and sensors and encoders and PID controllers and more. But too many of those devices assume ipv4, as do the corporate networks they live behind. So we have to assign all the embedded devices IPv4 addresses that don't conflict with the corporate s network, then apply NAT. It is overcomplicated, and so I can't remotely monitor the devices. To solve this there are a gzillion 3rd-party companies each with their own tools and APIs for remote monitoring.

Each device ought to be able to assign itself a unique IPv6 address and we could talk straight to it. Instead we go through a myriad of 3rd-party NAT hacks to get there.

A firewall is fine. Multiple levels for firewall is fine. Multiple levels of firewall each one rewriting the IP address is a nightmare. Often time today teams assume NAT is a firewall feature, when in reality firewall don't need NAT to function. It's just a hack.

We have made it work, but it is costing us dearly. End-to-end addressability is fundamental to the original design of the internet. It enables any two nodes to communicate directly without needing a third party to broker the connection. For example, decades ago two people could play a video game over the internet without needing a 3rd-party server. IPv4 exhaustion and widespread use of NAT broke the model, handing control over to centralized services. So today, my cell phone can't ping your cell phone without going through someone else.

The Internet went from a democratic self-healing system to one where big corporations dictate what protocols we can use to connect.

Us old farts pine from the old days. Today's network engineers are fine with corporate control because they don't know anything else. Time will tell how big of a problem this really is.

Perhaps governments that want the citizens and corporations to police speech should provide a webapi like https://gov.br/IsAcceptablePos... that returns true or false, so we all know what is okay and what is not.