- Further study and monitoring of the economic impact of A.I. on jobs.
I really doubt the government will have the best interest of all people, so long as the wealthy donors benefit... it's working.
- Creating a clear U.S. policy regarding the development and use of "Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems."
"It was justified based on the algorithms determination that this was a credible threat, despite the fact it was an elementary school. The regulatory AI agrees."
And in what way does this new mechanism "enhance security"? Running something in the background after you log out doesn't give you any more privileges than if you remained logged in.
I get people being angry about Systemd, change is hard on people and giving up behaviours/knowledge that the community has prided as a point of recognition feels like losing a culture divergence from the Unix philosophy. Unfortunately they're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
The proper perspective is to understand that Systemd is a significant conceptual step towards targeting the enterprise with Linux. This change has made it so Linux effectively now has a centrally manageable remote process control system built in by default. This is an additional level of control over user space processes, which at the enterprise level, is a very valuable feature. Effectively the *nix version of Microsofts "Applocker" in an environment where a user often operates at higher levels of permissions. That's how enterprises operate their networks and a significant step up in securing Linux from that point of view.
Don't dare say sudo in response, great single system low user count idea, but again I'm talking about the enterprise level, hundreds of thousands of servers, desktops and accounts.
Last year, an enterprising advertising executive based in Boston, Massachusetts, had an idea: Instead of using his sophisticated mobile surveillance techniques to figure out which consumers might be interested in buying shoes, cars, or any of the other products typically advertised online, what if he used the same technology to figure out which women were potentially contemplating abortion, and send them ads on behalf of anti-choice organizations?
Regardless of one's personal stance on the pro-choice/anti-abortion debate, the unfettered use of tracking and ad-targeting technology which makes this kind of application possible is surely a cause for concern. In Europe, Canada and many other parts of the world, the use of a person's data in this way would be illegal thanks to strict privacy laws. Is it time for the US to consider a similar approach to protect its citizens?
Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.