What OS will let you install virtualization software without granting root/admin?

None..

Parents don't have to understand all the details ahead of time to say "why do you need my password", etc. Also its non-trivial to install and OS in a VM. It seems trivial to us, but its going to take the average 12 year old with vague instructions from some kid a school a bit of trouble to do so. Yes many will manage, but good parents will still have the opportunity to ask 'what have you been doing with the computer so long today, Tim?"

See this ironcald proof, the 'derp parents need to parent harder derp', argument is bullshit. The moment anyone gives parents even a speed bump they can put between their kids and total free for all online, everyone is up in arms, even when there is no privacy concern with this implementation. You're already clicking 'I am over 18' making an unevinced assertion anywhere this will be used, how can it harm you to make another?

About the only fair criticism of this are

1) It does create a minor burden on FOSS projects and anyone else marketing and OS
2) It *could* be frog boiling, hey you're already saying your 18 or over, why not just go ahead and upload your drivers license.

I'll grant those, but subscription to either of those arguments means you have pretty much oppose all forms of regulation...

Alternatively you could look at it as the law striking a not entirely unreasonable balance between the two.

You as user are being asked when you setup an account to assert that you are over the age of majority. You are not being asked for any proof or anything beyond your say so.

As a OS vendor you are being asked to create a facility for users to make this age assertion and provide some API access to it.

Not much a privacy invasion at all really..

On the other hand as parent, your kids probably can't easily wipe and replace your OS without you noticing if they are using your computer, and as to if they can change their account attributes, you don't have to give them admin/root. Even if you are giving them their own device, you could probably password protect the bios, and restrict the boot media. Can they defeat it sure, an older kid probably can but even so, if you are paying any attention at all to what they actually do with their computer (and nobody would argue parents should not be so doing) you have some opportunity to notice this.

The OS layer might not be (probably isn't) the right place to implement any of this, but at least the CA law (can't believe I am say this) seems far from onerous, in comparison to practically everything else CA demands of computer users, does not seem to pose much privacy risk at all.

The system does not need to be entirely unbeatable. As so many people here point out, parents still need to parent their kids. Now if you look in on your kid every once in a while you might just notice them doing things like re-installing an OS, running a bunch of VMs etc, and as a parent have an opportunity to ask them some questions about why.

This whole idea that these measures need to be 100% effective to no be entirely useless is just wrong. I am even tempted to think given how much opponents of these rules spend thinking about they are entirely aware of that but use the argument anyway because they don't want to be upfront about the real reasons for their opposition.

This isn't really the same question though.

Now that ruling may imply the newly generated library can't be licensed at all because it can't be copyrighted.

However the question is can you tell an LLM to re-implement some other IP and then claim that does not infringe on the original / isn't subject to its license.

I honestly don't understand why it would not come back to the same rulings that have been made about clean room implementations in the past and the fact that you can't copyright an interface.

In the closed source case where we can assume the original could not have been in the training set, and you give claude nothing but the API doc and say make me a library that behaves exactly like this description - I don't see how that could infringe on the original.

On the other hand if you provide the source to the original, I don't see how it couldn't. Just like if I renamed all the characters in Harry Potter, and used a thesaurus to replace every fifth word, JK Rolling would probably have little trouble suing me.

In the case FOSS where its down right probably the model was trained on the source, we are back to the unsettled questions of how much of the original content survives, how likely is the model to generate outputs that don't materially differ from the original, and the usual cases by case disputes about when something is materially different...

Can't argue that. However we have been trying to develop a reliable intercept to solution for high altitude ICBMs for what 4 decades and change, and we have like one partially successful test to show for it where everyone knew ahead of time exactly where the target missile would be...

It will be a long time I expect before we effectively counter the weapons Russia and China have disclosed from 2019 onward. The reliability of these devices and the means (at least China) to produce them will improve far more rapidly then defense will.

The era of being able to do what Trump did, put a large flotilla into position then attack using it as platform to acquire air superiority from quickly will be over soon and for a while until someone comes up with some novel anti-missile solutions, which I am sure are in the works but are not here, yet and can't be manufactured at scale. Hell we can't produce enough current gent patriot missiles to replace the current rate a depletion.

If China (or Russia) were to place even small numbers of YJ-20/21 like devices at the disposal of the second world partners, things will look very different for us and quickly. Think of Faulklands and how things might have gone if France had let them continue to use Exocets.

I maintain the timing of this is about one thing.

Hyper-sonic missiles

We are doing this now because we won't be able to do it later. The age of the American Aircraft carrier, is soon to be over. A handful of weapons that cannot be swatted down will be all that is required to sink a large warship.

You don't need to be able to produce these either, just scrape enough money together to buy one from China, or Russia who love the opportunity to sell anything to anyone. Especially something that is a lot of intellectual property that can be assembled in relatively small facilities and highly valued in small quantities vs say the plant and supply chain to build t-80 tanks...

This new reality is going to make a lot of American military doctrine and hardware we have relied upon since the end of the cold war obsolete, in that it will be to vulnerable deploy in any real combat theater. Last December the table top games simulating a China conflict leaked. In every scenario our new Carrier is destroyed, in the likely ones over a period of just hours into conflict.

Now do imagine anyone in either party is going to tell the American public, the era of effective US force project is over? This is about blowing up the second-world trade network and economy while we can, getting some 'value' out of these fighters and carrier focused navy while we can.

Yes but its not completely avoidable. When nations start lobbing high-explosives at each other sometimes they go off target.. People make mistakes, AIs make mistakes. This is why wars are bad, and we should try to not have wars. However when we do have wars we should fight to win them.

The history of the entire middle east post WWII seems to be unending serious of conflicts in which each involve someone accidentally blowing up girls school, wedding party, hospital, aide convoy, and whatever other off limits target you can imagine. Often times its because the worst actors intentionally sought use their own people as human shields and other times it really is just a serious of unfortunate locations choices mixed up with the lets lob high explosives at each other reality.

here is the thing if these parties actually did engage in "total war" and actually did bomb the factories that drive the economic engine to reinvest and re-arm, did hit the hospitals putting the combatants back into fight, maybe just maybe someone truly win in a way the losing population would finally give up the will to fight, and we could STOP reading about these tragedies.

It is a tragedy those innocent young women died! You know what will be more f***ing tragic though, if five years from now Israel and Iran and lobbing bombs at each other again, and their younger sisters get killed in the same kind of stupid accident.

Unless you don't think a 14 year old should be able to use the youtube app on a smart tv, and don't connect it to the internet, don't give them them wifi password, etc - device tracking on your smart phone is near useless. Same thing at the school library, or kid next doors house.

The notion because parents can install net nanny on the family pc, or turn on some kid mode on smart-thing-X and that is all anyone needs to do about this issue, boils down to the belief that either:

Competent parents stand over the shoulder of their children, even pre-teens and teens 100% of the time, never letting them out of sight.

or

Competent parenting results in pre-teens and teens who never ever make bad choices because we raised them right. In which case all of our age restricts are nonsense and we should take the view that if a 14 year old wants to buy liquor or firearms, or hell liquor and firearms they either know what they are doing or are already to far gone to help.

Both of these things are just wrong. I appreciate the privacy concerns. I would really like to see some kind of anonymous token that can be used to assert someone is 'over the age of majority' in their state/nation and not much else. However the current status quo leaves any parent wishing to afford a minor any degree a freedom at all with very little hope of acting before the cow has left the barn. There are a lot of posts here saying stuff like 'well the kids will just take your id' see that is where a little parenting might work. If you kids are rifling thru your night stand or asking to borrow your license, you can ask some questions! The solution does not have to be 100% iron clad to work. Just like some 17 year olds might get a fake id that is passable and escape with a case a beer once or twice, it raised the bar a lot, and an attentive parent could/should/will notice behavior that they need to start asking questions. The prefect should not be the enemy of the good here.

This argument is so tired and so silly.

Look yes there are lazy parents that don't have a clue what their kids are doing, and are always seeking ways to dump the problem of raising their kids off on others. I am not going to dispute that.

There are lot more parents that want to be responsible, but lack any effective tools to do. Right now parental controls availible on inconsistently applied at best, snake oil at worst, and not aligned to their partents actual goals/views in a lot of cases. Sure their is YouTube-kids, who decides what content is appropriate hint someone at corporate not parents. Then there is the technology gap, don't like Alphabet's opinions about what is right for your kid good luck filtering it on your own unless your IT professional. Then it all goes out the window the moment they use a device at school or a friends house etc...

In every other aspect of society we place guardrails on dangerous things to allow children to explore the world safely in age appropriate ways. As someone once said "It takes a village."

The cigarette machines went away and the cartons moved behind the counter. The gas station only accepts credit cards at the pump and if little Patti-the-pyro walks in and asks for a gallon they will send her away. We expect business to not let them gamble or sell them liquor too. Even the movie theater will enforce age limits on films, for unaccompanied minors.

American society has long been built around the assumption, pre-teens and teenagers should have little freedom to explore without being exposed to every possible vice the marketplace has to offer.

There is no reason for a naive parent to expect the internet should be different, there is no reasons the rest of us should WANT it to be different. Mostly its nobody knows how to solve the problem without creating other ones, which is fine but I would argue we owe our children something better. If we are not prepared to solve the privacy problems, integrity, etc problems that come with age verification online maybe we should out right ban things like Internet Porn, online gambling, entirely. You want your smutt get in the car drive out into the sticks until you see a billboard for Adult World.

exactly I was going to come back to say this.

As far as in your house too. There was time when you'd not think to pull a camera out even at kids birthday party or whatever in someone elses home, but now people do it without even thinking twice.

So chances are there are photos of your home out there, unless you never have guests or your guests are all older-Millennials (early 80s vintage) or older, who still think about the appropriateness of photography.

A lot of people are really good at superstitiously recording with a phone too, while they pretend to be just scrolling or whatever.

Heck I even won a spy camera that looks like a ballpoint pen in some stupid raffle, it does write does not seem especially heavy, would escape attention laying on a conference table. It makes 1080p video and records sound as well. I have never done anything other than 'play' with it, but walking around with it in shirt pocket would go completely unnoticed; far more discrete then wearing non-scrip glasses indoors.

This has been an know issues/concern going back to at least 2014. People were talking about it at security conferences back then.

Are they; do you know if there are or are not hidden cameras in your office building? Are you on a neighbors camera while you open your mailbox?

Cameras are everywhere to point, I think it is a real question as to if the glassholes materially change anything.

I am not making this comment to excuse them, more to point out I expect of people are being record a lot of time without their awareness. Sure maybe it is mostly security footage nobody every looks at, but I wonder how many people realize just how little privacy they actually have.

So what we are going see now is smart glasses that either don't send their real device class or allow users to configure fake device classes / ids.

This just starts an arms race, and we end up with a bunch stuff that is just fundamentally broken like wifi ssids that are not broadcast and the like. No real security (unless there are no clients) but lots of problems and hassles.

Mobile is the one case where I don't see a lot of good reasons people would want much on device compute for things like inferences.

It is a huge energy suck and nobody, even with relatively convenient induction charging surfaces around wants to pull their phone out of the pocket to charge constantly.

Nobody really wants to tank the battery life of their mobile either given batteries are either not end user service items or are a huge PITA for those adventurous enough to do it anyway, with lots of extra cycles.

Remote agent for mobile makes the most sense. Now that remote agent does not have to be a data-center it could be PC back at your house, but either way it does not change the network usage asymmetry as far as your handset is concerned.

Let's also be very realistic about another no part of the industry besides the guys selling last mile air time and possibly cellular modems want any kind of decentralization. Anthropic, OpenAI, Oracle, Microsoft, Amazon, Tesla, don't make money is everyone starts running some Huggin Face models on local hardware. They will be doing everything they can continue to lockin and otherwise steer people toward their huge datacenter investments.

Qualcomm better either better either figure out how to market their compute products to the datacenter guys or otherwise come up with a business plan that drives growth from something that isn't driven by AI buzzwords and moonbeam dreams about radically altered marketplaces just because "ai"

Not to young. bye the bye.

The new Ayatollah will likely be assassinated before this over, just like the last one.

Ritter is off base, Nukes are are problem but they are not the concern here. Again the problem is not dirty bombs or nukes, that is one of the narratives being tried with the public because anti-proliferation is politically acceptable.

The real reason I am pretty sure hyper-sonic misses and to a lessor extent drones. Trump and and lot of other people in our government don't want to come out and say it, because the American public does not want to hear it but the era of American interventions where we don't have to put boots on the ground is about to draw to swift end. There is no practical defense against hyper-sonic missiles. You can't shoot them down. They are also to expensive (thankfully, and also "for now") to use in barrage attacks against low value targets like we see against Israel frequently. They are however not to expensive to use against a hi-value target like an American Aircraft carrier. A regime like Iran, which by the way was capable and a participant in designing this things for the current authoritarian-axis powers, might well be able to purchase some number of manufactured units from China or Russia.

With those in hand we are not going to be able park carriers in the gulf of Oman or the Persian Gulf and just conduct operations from 'relative safety'. These assets will no longer useful in conflicts that any regime views as existential, there might be hesitation to sink US warship in a smaller dust up to prevent escalations but if Iran had a hyper-sonic missile right now they'd be sending our ships to the bottom. This is about clearing the table of frozen conflicts before we can't, and limiting the economic and natural resources of the Russo-Chinese Sphere while we can.