Which is why it is a priority for Republicans to lock in long term bans on regulation of AI. Damaging society has become their highest priority, almost as if they are controlled by our primary adversary.

You can't seriously , actually believe this....can you????

If so, you might wanna quit talking to the bot(s)....go outside and get some fresh air....log off awhile, get away from the TV and your echo chamber....

"Companies have one job in a capitalism - make money. Thatâ(TM)s their *only* societal responsibility..." This is false, it is merely a claim made by sociopaths. A companies "job" is to perform in the way its owners desire, in the past there were differing goals that companies would have (and that's still true of smaller companies). The "make money at any cost" approach comes from Wall Street, not capitalism, it is human nature.

With most any company of any decent size, the "owners" are the stockholders.

And with stockholders....pretty much the sole obligation the people working the company for the stockholders is to make money for the stockholders.

I mean, that's pretty much the ONLY reason anyone buys stock in a company.....why else would they do so if not to make a profit?

You're soaking in it.

(Madge?)

Logically only 60 or so years remain before AI can take over 100% of jobs. Assuming that we're all replaceable cogs where every job and every worker are equivalent.
The other factor, a constant rate of growth in AI's capabilities, is probably less of a hand-wave than you might think because we're going to be constrained on the sizes of the models, computational power of the servers, and of course electricity to run it all. We'll probably see a very brief exponential growth of AI then a slow as physical constraints kick in, we're already see exponential money burned on the problem with a likely linear pay off. Jensen's "The more you buy, the more you save." will probably work out as "The more you buy, your more you spent." for most AI bets.

/bin/bash is still installed, so people's typical shell scripts like command-line installers and whatnot still work.
I think the default being zsh is that it's less buggy and has some nice interface features.
The real question we should ask is not why Apple includes zsh by default, but why Ubuntu makes you install it before you can use it.

Starting your career as a barely literate dumb ass isn't going to be stacking the deck in your favor.
I managed to get pretty far in life that way, but I have spent years playing catch-up and reading like a fiend because everyone around me is better educated, more knowledgeable, and often smarter than me.

Apple has a handful of GPL programs and publishes their modifications. Bash being the most obvious example.
ref: https://opensource.apple.com/r...

My tablet is usually used on my desktop. But a laptop is clearly not designed for a desktop, hence the name.
My favorite desktop device is a pad of paper and pencil. I even have a pencil sharpener to go with it on my desktop.

There are a lot of Linux users that don't hang out in the same bars as you. It's just like being gay, not everyone is out there and active in the community.

What in the world are people thinking? I'm not sure letting people have money is a good idea anymore.

Globalization happened. You can't rewind the clock and pretend it didn't. The situation we operate under now is different than what we had in the mid-20th century.

Trump pointed out that most countries didn't meet their obligations, and most of those countries ignored him. It was Putin who succeeded in getting these countries to up their budgets.

In 2014 only 3 nato members met the 2% target (USA, UK, Greece):
https://www.nato.int/content/d...

Eastern Europe was screaming about how dangerous this was, but they weren't listened to.

One of the most insane things is how after Russia's surprisingly poor military performance in the Georgian war, the Merkel government was disturbed not that Russia invaded Georgia, but at the level of disarray in the Russian army, and sought a deliberate policy of improving the Russian military. They perceived Russia as a bulkwark against e.g. Islamic extremism, and as a potential strategic partner. They supported for example Rheinmetal building a modern training facility in Russia and sent trainers to work with the Russian military.

With Georgia I could understand (though adamantly disagreed) how some dismissed it as a "local conflict" because it could be spun as "Georgia attacking an innocent separatist state and Russia just keeping their alliances". But after 2014 there was no viable spin that could disguise Russia's imperial project. Yet so many kept sticking their fingers in their years going, "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" and pretending like we could keep living as we were before. It was delusional and maddening.

The EU has three times Russia's population and an order of magnitude larger of an economy. In any normal world, Russia should be terrified of angering Europe, not the other way around. But our petty differences, our shortsightedness, our adamant refusal to believe deterrence is needed, much less to pay to actually deter or even understand what that means... we set ourselves up for this.

And I say this to in no way excuse the US's behavior. The US was doing the same thing as us (distance just rendered Russia less of a US trading partner) and every single president wanted to do a "reset" of relations with Russia, which Russia repeatedly used to weaken western defenses in Europe. And it's one thing for the US to say to Europe "You need to pay more for defense" (which is unarguable), even to set realistic deadlines for getting defense spending up, but it's an entirely different thing to just come in and abandon an ally right in the middle of their deepest security crisis since World War II. It's hard to describe to Americans how betrayed most Europeans feel at America right now. The US organized and built the world order it desired (even the formation of the EU was strongly promoted by the US), and then just ripped it out from under our feet when it we're under attack.

A friend once described Europe in the past decades as having been "a kept woman" to America. And indeed, life can be comfortable as a kept woman, and both sides can benefit. America built bases all over Europe to project global power; got access to European militaries for their endeavours, got reliable European military supply chains, etc and yet remained firmly in control of NATO policy; maintained itself as the world's reserve currency; were in a position that Europe could never stop them from doing things Europeans disliked (for example, from invading Iraq); and on and on - while Europe decided that letting the US dominate was worth being able to focus on ourselves. But a kept woman has no real freedom, no real security, and your entire life can come crashing down if you cross them or they no longer want you.

(Score:X, Troll)

And yet, your imaginary friend still isn't real. ;)

When a cop asks you what time it is, simply respond: "I do not answer questions and I invoke my to remain silent."