I respectfully disagree. While it’s true that some scenarios may involve convoluted situations where a person is murdered and then brought onto a property, or enticed onto a property and then murdered, the majority of cases likely revolve around homeowners defending their property. In edge cases, law enforcement would investigate. The law can indeed require evidence that the victim was committing a crime while entering the property, among other criteria.

However, the current status quo, where criminals invading a family’s home can operate with relative impunity, poses significant risks to both the public and homeowners. A homeowner and civilian should never be afraid to defend themselves or their family, and it is the home invader who should bear the risk of retaliation and should be liable for everything that happens next.

Is this law only applicable to "AI" software , or does it apply broadly across all forms of art? There is an assumption that this will only affect dirty men sharing porn images, but it can have other implications as well. If it only applies to AI, why are LLM generators being held to a higher standard than every other form of digital art? Where is the fairness and consistency in law when LLM companies (and now users) are being asked to follow laws and undertake responsibilities that they don't need to for other tools and methods.
Secondly why is this only being limited to "porn", for that matter what is "Porn" and who defines sexually explicit. Is the harm caused by cartoonish nude photos higher than for sex trafficking to deserve an automatic criminal record , jail time, and an unlimited fine? This seems to be posturing and fishing for votes and relevancy by an MP and should be critically debated. The problem is how difficult it is from a public perception point of view to argue rationally against emotional topics such as this. It's all too easy for someone on the other side to jump up in parliament and claim an MP is supporting pornography.

The most straightforward approach to safeguarding homeowners and discouraging criminals involves asserting that while a burglar remains on your property, you bear no responsibility for any harm that befalls them. Eliminate the self-defense prerequisite if the intruder is injured or killed after unlawfully entering your premises. In such harrowing circumstances, where adrenaline surges and panic sets in, homeowners find themselves at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting their homes and families. The law as stated seems to be designed to protect the criminal.

If Microsoft depends on advertising revenue to manage the Bing AI, it will lose its neutrality and objectivity. It will prefer results and output that favor advertisers. Censorship of results and a bias toward what appeals to the mass market will be assured.

This makes it seem as though this is unusual. Western AIs are censored as well, for names, body parts, and certain themes. Whether we want to think of these themes as political or not, they certainly represent a very specific brand of morality of the United States. In that sense, how is what China is doing any different, except that (for good reason) we don't agree with the actions of the Chinese regime on certain issues? The fact is there is very rigorous censorship at work in Dall-E, Stable Diffusion and MId Journey even for locally hosted instances.

I think for games, if turning off a game's servers will prevent a customer from accessing the product they purchased, the company must provide an alternative for that customer to continue using their product.

For example if you bought a BMW ten years ago, and BMW decides to turn off their subscription server for Turbo 3.0 and that bricks your car there would be a class action lawsuit. (BMW is offering subscriptions for things like heated seats, Tesla ties software subscriptions to owners and prevents these features from being sold with a car to another owner)

In the same way if I purchase software and the company turns off the servers that company must provide me with some form of compensation. That could mean the company must be forced to release its working server code with a license for customers to use. This would also force companies to develop proper server code that can easily be spun up and re-used.

Free To Play may present a challenge since players may not actually buy the game, but I'm sure certain tweaks can be made so customers aren't left out in the cold. City of Heroes and Wildlands could definitely have benefitted from this. Copyright was never meant to protect a company's business from a single work into perpetuity.

Governments will never stop trying to break encryption to gain access to all the data of their citizens and circumvent all privacy legislations. Time and time again these bills fail when challenged, and time and time again private parties collude with governments to try to force them through. The voting public need to be educated so the myth of helping the children ,with these invasive laws which will do anything but, loses its emotional effect.

This is really quite silly. On the one hand the journalists created a private room, the equivalent of a private Whatsapp/Messenger chat room. But on the other hand they wanted Facebook to shut it down because they broke Facebook's rules government public spaces? If Facebook blocked private rooms, or closely monitored what was said or done in private spaces no doubt these same journalists would complain that the company was being overbearing and invading the privacy of users! It would be interesting to hear from these same journalists exactly how they expect private rooms and spaces to function in VR worlds.

If the Tech firms pool their resources it may be better for them to replace the ISPs totally. Maybe partner with Musk or Amazon for their satellite network to bypass the land based providers in Europe.

The "mistake" is just what the article stated. If youtube receives enough complaints it drops a channel, comment etc. It is their way of handling the incredible volume of channels and information. In their view, and maybe in order to comply with laws, it's better to drop channels undeservedly than to leave a channel that is in breach of decency laws up. Left wing extremists use this tactic as well to drop content they don't agree with, it isn't a tactic primarily used by the right anymore. The left does not represent "Good" and the right "Evil" . I've read that internally youtube staffers can influence demonetization of content with which they don't agree. The internet itself still remains the only truly egalitarian medium.

So because modern search engines sometimes return poor result, the answer is to remove ALL the information totally? That doesn't make sense. That just means no one will ever be able to find anything, because it just will not exist. This is especially true for gaming and tech support issues where a post from four years ago can be useful today to solve a problem.

If the data stays with the person who owns the glasses, and Facebook cannot use it for marketing,or resale to third parties then sure what is the problem with the feature? It can be tremendously useful for a variety of reasons. Facebook (or anyone else, including law enforcement) should not be allowed to use the data for its own purposes.

South Korea and other parts of Asia seem to be getting great results with their 5G installations. The US technology was well behind Huawei, so it doesn't seem surprising that the installation sucks. This is probably just going to be a money grab by the entrenched US Telecom companies rather than a competitive consumer grade product. What is interesting is how this will affect new technologies that would depend on low latency, high bandwidth connections that would have been expected to come out of Silicon Valley first. Are we now going to see that innovation come from another country instead?

When Automation and AI kicks in and jobs simply no longer exist, that is when UBI kicks in. Profits are supposed to be much higher, and states are supposed to collect more taxes from companies which will then be funnelled back into the UBI schemes. The increase in profit due to Automation and AI is supposed to be several times more than 30% of GDP.

Improving the distribution of resources as technology improves is also going to help. Thinking of UBI in terms of the world as it is today is short sighted and not at all what UBI is supposed to address.

The Windows 7 and Windows 10 usage has drifted within 5 % of each other since Windows 10 first launched. The idea that a majority of people are not buying Windows 10 because of spyware concerns is far fetched, and I suspect there is little empirical evidence to back it up.

If customers believe that there is value in paying a subscription for their operating system they will do it. But it will be limited to the developed, first world nations. Governments, on the whole, aren't going to care what Operating System their citizens use.

All this does leave a door ajar for a competitor to walk through, but let's be honest: There is no practical competitor for Windows 7/10 for the home market. ReactOS looks like a clunky mess from 15 years ago.