I may have to switch to Falkon.

Welll... they'll protect you privacy, but not your identity. They didn't divulge what the messages said, just who paid the bills.

You may not even have had the data for longer than it takes to reformat the drive. But if you have it, you can return it. This, of course, doesn't prove you didn't keep a copy.

If he was one of the founders, perhaps he had the job of doing the checks.

Maybe, but they'd refuse to forward your messages.

Actually, were the AI sufficiently good, I can see a large use case for voice controlled phones. But it would need to continue to work when the signal failed. And it would need to be able to recognize the voice of the owner when the owner had a bad cold. And to refuse commands coming from someone else.

That said, I think we're a bit distant from that level of capability. (Admittedly, I haven't checked recently.)

Actually, even 5G hasn't made it out to where I live, and probably to many other areas. So 6G is likely to take awhile. Mind you, they started charging for it a few years ago, and changed the frequencies used by the phone, so I had to get a new one...but they didn't get around to actually building the thing.

No. It's telling you they aren't using a screen driven model for their design. Not everyone does. OTOH, command line models have always had a trouble being sold to a wide audience.

That said, I prefer a good visual + mouse interface, as to most people...but not everyone does. And text based interfaces can often be much more efficient.

But git doesn't have a nice screen interface.

Well, my guess is that it's going to be a custom AI-database cross trained on all the opensource code it can lay it's hands on. It's probably intended as a training ground for their AI coder.

It *is* more complicated than that. A private company is allowed to censor, and if the government "requests" rather than orders it, then I'm not sure it's unconstitutional. The problem is if the company is a public accomodation, then it's NOT supposed to be allowed to censor...but practically, that's really necessary. Newspapers use "editorial judgement" as to which "letters to the editor" they print, after all. And most of them won't print things that the government finds too offensive. (The ones that do often run into legal troubles.)

I don't know what the best answer would be. Wide open isn't it, but neither is massive censorship.

OTOH, this argument doesn't have much to do with Altman.

Sorry, but these are not (yet?) the worst of circumstances.

The problem with that is the laws are really atrocious. They're designed with the apparent intent of selective enforcement. Judges are supposed to reign in excessive use of this.

N.B.: "Apparent intent": This isn't necessarily actual intent, but it's the sort of thing that happens when different groups with different agendas pass laws without bothering to repeal those in conflict with their agenda.

Do remember that on some beaches the sand is quite valuable. There was a time when most chips were made from the sand on one particular beach.

That's a lousy test. Sorry, but it's a really lousy test.
OTOH, I don't want to trust "Mecha-hitler".