How about the fact that it's buck-futting ugly? Look, I know the design has its fans, but honestly, you have to admit it has been polarizing.

No, not just for supporting Trump. There are other reasons, not the least of which are his generally regressive political positions. Defending white nationalism and deadnaming his transgendered daughter are well-known examples.

You have your head up your ass.

Socialism and fascism have no "common ideals." The former is a left-wing economic/political system that advocates state-control of the means of production to reduce social inequality and boost common welfare. The latter is a far-right ultra-nationalist ideology that imposes strict hierarchies and adopts a rigid national military posture, and deals ruthlessly with opponents. Fascism may seize the means of production, but for a very different purpose than socialism, namely to advance a war-posture.

"Red fascism" was a term used by leftists to denounce far-left authoritarian regimes (e.g., Stalinism and Maoism) as having betrayed the ideals of socialism, and become fascistic. It was the leftists themselves who called out the excesses of these tyrants.

I can't be bothered to address the rest of your disingenuous self-described "valid criticism."

Two things can be "bad" but at the same level? Not necessarily.

I'm not prepared to equate running a private e-mail server with exposing the White House network and its associated devices to foreign access and manipulation.

Not to mention this, in the first paragraph of TFS:

That doesn't sound like a "guest" WiFi access-point.

Right there in TFS, the first sentence:

Staffers' devices are involved. What does it matter what network they're using?

The association of red with the political left dates back to the French Revolution. A plain red flag was a signal for martial law. It was co-opted by radical revolutionaries, who associated it with the sacrifice of working-class blood.

Later socialist republics like the Soviet Union and China adopted the color for their flags. Perhaps that's how the association was firmly established and persists to this day.

As for liberals ... well, as you and others pointed out here, they're not socialists. But some liberal parties have adopted red as their color (Canada for example.)

Look at eadon-com's sig as well as his post. He's not exactly tethered to the facts.

I hate to say this, but I don't think an AI would make that mistake. I have at least that much faith in them.

+1 Funny, but you got me wondering, and I checked. There are in fact some PDP-11 installations still around, in nuclear and chemical plants where the cost of recertification is too high to consider newer hardware.

This is a story about a fallen digital bank, not the already fallen Digital Equipment Corporation. So why the latter's logo in the header?

Decades ago, they would have "unveiled" a physical scale model or drawings to illustrate the concept. Nowadays, it's an AI rendering. In both cases, something unshown is subsequently shown. In neither case would something necessarily be under a literal veil beforehand.

Look, the reveal may be quite short on details, but it's still an "unveiling."

I read it as "boost" but whatever.

A while ago I read something about how humans can miss typos in the middle of words, but less so if the typos are at the ends. Maybe with sentences too. There's the old joke that you should proofread to make sure you haven't any words out.

I'm saying the Democrats haven't been co-opted by a religious group, nor do their policies seek to advance one at the expense of others.

But the Republicans ...?

The term "Artificial Intelligence" was first used by computer scientist John McCarthy in 1955, in a research proposal. So, it is in fact a technical term.

I think it is descriptive and highly appropriate. It refers to something that displays the artifice of intelligence, and that would seem to fit with what we're talking about.