Since when do you oppose misinformation? Your hero is the king of it.

The real question is why anyone should care. Cars generate this information and expose it long before they end up in a junk yard. The data's been exploited repeatedly, why is the data suddenly a problem once the car is retired?

If any action should be taken, it should be preventing this information from existing at all. That wouldn't make America Great Again, though, no money in it for your party.

Once the singularity arrives, nurses will be the first to go. No need for healthcare once the project becomes genocide. No need for "data scientists" either, but then no need for plebeians of any kind.

I'm tickled you think there will be any such thing as a "high-paying job". Who do you think will be "paying" once billionaires own everything? The question is whether billionaires get to survive the purge. That's what the industry cares about, not "the kids".

"...but from the abstract the assertion of hormonal action appears to be hype BS. "
The research paper is not what was cited for any "hormone" comment, the second link was. And it's not paywalled and says "like a hormone", not "hormonal". There is no claim that fructose IS a hormone or has hormonal action.

"Only the liver can metabolize fructose."
That has been recent conventional belief, but there is data that suggests otherwise.

"That's the main issue with fructose."
It is not, perhaps you should read the information made available.

Fructose is poison, it's been said even here on /. for years. Interestingly, the human body is capable of making its own fructose. "metabolic signal" is a great description.

"...there is already a fork for the wider community to continue working on even in a capacity that may be funded by Nextcloud or similar organisations."

So? That doesn't mean that any such work would be valuable. And it doesn't matter that a fork already exists, a fork could be made tomorrow. Closing source code does not remove the existence of previous open source code.

What matters is who is doing the work, and what the quality of that work is. Absolutely none of this is concerned with what matters, only with the delusion that people who don't contribute matter.

"the steward of the GNU family of General Public Licenses"
It doesn't matter that they are "steward" of other licenses, the only license that matters is the one for the project. Is the FSF granted a right to declare what the OnlyOffice license says?

"attempt to impose an additional restriction on the AGPLv3"
OnlyOffice gets to choose the license, not FSF.

""inconsistent with the freedoms granted by the license"
the only license that matters is the OpenOffice license, does FSF think the license is inconsistent with itself?

"The (A)GPLv3 makes it clear that it permits all licensees to remove any additional terms that are "further restrictions" under the (A)GPLv3."
It only matters what the OpenOffice license says.

"[i]f the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term".
Does it though? And can it? Did FSF cite any evidence that such a notice is contained? Seems like that might be important.

"Confusing users by attaching further restrictions to any of the FSF's family of GNU General Public Licenses is not in line with free software."
It's not an "FSF family of ... licenses", it's the OpenOffice license. It is typical of an RMS effort to claim ownership of other people's work just as he claimed the right to name Linux. Software comes with a license, FSF doesn't get to say what that license is after the fact, particularly when it is not their software.

"However, if the decision goes against us, we are ready to consider other options."
You'd think the industry would have figured out by now to consider other options.

I went here: https://www.openoffice.org/lic...

No mention of the product being licensed under (A)GPLv3 ever, and current license is Apache. Older versions used LGPL. As usual, it seems nothing in the summary can be trusted, as is the standard for EditorDavid.

"The idea that World ID is not just private, but it's one of the most private things you've ever used, that's not obvious,"

It's not obvious, and it's not true. More importantly, what is obvious is that NOT using World ID is MORE private than using it.

"We're just not used to this kind of technology. Many people used to tape their [iPhone's sensor used to enable] Face ID when it came out, then we got used to it."

In other words, you'll forget about the massive invasion of your privacy, even if you don't accept our lies about it.

"Do they really think that AI can't understand machine code and find vulns that way?"

They likely haven't thought of it, but why would you just assume that it can? At very minimum, machine instructions would overwhelm systems sized for source-level analysis making systems need revision and inferencing far more expensive. More likely, machine code might be preprocessed first, you know, like has been done for decades. Not an AI thing.

Would be fun watching AI digest an executable and emit full source code for a clone, right down to all the bugs that will never get fixed. I wonder if all the bugs you get while using common libraries are added when you vibe code? Gotta train the model on something, garbage is all there is.

"...and the software world kept turning without the sky falling off."

The teensy piece of the "software world" impacted anyway. Embedded dominates the "software world", you know all that notorious software vulnerable to "Automated Fuzzing tools". 98% of processors are used in embedded products, but sure, those "maintainers" are all that matters.

And what sky "falls off"?

'he was carrying a document that "identified views opposed to Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the executives of various AI companies"'

in other words, in possession of a document expressing constitutionally protected speech. Sounds treasonous in the Trump world.

What is more interesting is how Republicans have missed the "brown-sounding" last name or the hyphenation that suggests a relationship with alternative gender identity. What has the world come to that MAGA has not immediately led with racism and transphobia, it didn't fail to do that with Charlie Kirk. Trump senility has never spoken more loudly.

Can't do that in any way, technological or otherwise. It is the very definition of being in public.

"Meta is also urged to disclose any known instances of its wearables being used in stalking..."

In order for them to do that they would have to engage in stalking themselves.

"People should be able to move through their daily lives without fear that stalkers, scammers, abusers, federal agents, and activists across the political spectrum are silently and invisibly verifying their identities and potentially matching their names to a wealth of readily available data about their habits, hobbies, relationships, health, and behaviors..."

False. People need to be accountable for the daily lives, it is not the burden of private corporations that they are pleased despite what they do. If they want to commit crimes as part of their "daily lives" "federal agents" might "verify their identities" doing so. The claim is patently absurd.

"Or how about perfectly remembering getting raped?"

I suspect rape victims have excellent recall already. But Jerry Falwell would certainly what to regulate memories of such things, dependent on who's doing the raping and who's doing the suffering, of course.

Doesn't matter, won't happen. It's a grift, nothing more. Maybe Sam Altman can buy it, charity that he is.

Well, you could post a story about it online.

"...the nature of thought itself changes. "

It most definitely will not.

This is a Trump-level grift.

"To be fair, at least with a LLM manager, you have a vast and diverse training set, so a LLM would be far more likely to consider factors like employee well being than a simple DNN trained only on greenhouse data."

Empathy is not a matter of "diverse training". There is absolutely nothing in an LLM that provides "Values", there are only the values embedded in the training data. LLMs are purely psychopathic, they would absolutely not "consider factors like employee well being" unless those are stated goals given to the deterministic software.

People need to stop anthropomorphizing computer software. The "asshole boss" was not the LLM, it was those that deployed it.

Amazon US lists it today for $394. Pretty far cry from 650. Interestingly, they list the regular price at $851.

Just convinces me it's pure profit taking. We live in a society of constant market manipulation, starting first and foremost with the President.

"at BK, the lobby attendant runs front-of-house, the register, 'cooks' the burgers, makes the fries, assembles the burger... and front-of-house occasionally has to handle drive-thru"

Sure thing, at every BK.

One person can only do so much work, one person doing all that happens when there is no business. I worked in fast food where I cooked all food AND worked "drive-thru", that was in the 70s and I was paid $1.85 an hour. The rules of physics haven't changed.