*ow!*

uh, found it...

... find my cat.

... if you do it twice.

Remember when you could, in System 6.0.7, and still in System 7, copy a file to a floppy (in MultiFinder), then from the floppy, then back to the floppy, and so on for a few minutes, and your Mac would hard crash. Remember?

As a tech I had a few tricks to crash Macs without any software. Just stupid Mac tricks. Not overflowing a disk, either, that was a stupid Windows trick.

Macs were not and are not yet infallible. They enjoy a huge advantage over Windows - control of the hardware. Windows suffers a multitude of hardware drivers, written by who-knows, and every significant attempt by Microsoft to insulate the kernel from bad driver behavior failed up to Windows 8. Mostly.

But it's sport to bash Windows. Has been since about Linux kernel 2.0, which if you were around then, you know was the pot calling the kettle black.

Windows has many flaws to hang your beanie on, but considering the requirements, it's remarkable. Not as remarkable as Linux, which somehow has become so despite (virtually) no paid developers. And I've used Linux since Slackware something like 0.9, which was not 'officially' distributed, and sort of worked. But it hooked me on Linux. Using Windows since the Mach 20 board and Windows 2.0, I've suffered but persisted. Felt bad for WordStar, WordPerfect for Windows, and some other software that never quite made it. Anyone remember Jazz?

Still, bashing Windows is easy. Anyone care to be similarly honest about X11?

Care to share actual metrics with us?

Not only have I seen that, but I have experienced it.

My socket set and ratchet isn't trying to convince me to be in a relationship with it, to be in love with it, to be something of an equal to it.

Even our pets as living beings capable of expressing themselves are not able to communicate at our level.

Large language model AI is attempting to spoof being human, to mimic being us. There are already examples of people becoming very, VERY upset when their AI-boyfriend or AI-girlfriend is taken away by companies revising the AI standards and interaction rules. This is unhealthy. The relationship needs to remain that of tool user and tool, because anything more than that is one-sided and subject to terrible abuse by anyone that managed to co-opt that system.

And it is common practice. And has been for a long time. If you want to do business with the government and you can't certify that your suppliers comply with applicable rules and regulations, you either stop using them. Or give up the business opportunity. Welcome to the Federal Procurement Process.

It's a hostage situation because Anthropic is trying to insert its TOS as a poison pill into others supply chains. The Pentagon doesn't have to comply with them. But as a potential vendor, you may be exposed to tortious action. Anthropic is setting you up as a blackmail victim. Something, by the way, that counterintelligence is VERY interested in.

I've been living in the DoD (now the DoW) supplier business for decades. And yes, it's bizarro land. But it's the law. Federal contracts are not some sort of UBI for crybaby companies.

Not 'punishment'. But 'not fit for use'. That is, in fact, what Anthropic says.

OK. Then you don't win the bid. Assuming that the DoW worded their acquisition RFQ properly. Also, if a third party uses Claude and wishes to bid on a DoW supply contract, Anthropic's resistance to being involved in such business may put that potential third party supplier in legal risk. The DoW has a right to proactively warn future partners about such a conflict. Hence the "supply chain risk".

Anthropic is taking potentially unwilling parties hostage. Anthropic has no right to impose its desires on these parties. That's restraint of trade. A violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and a felony.

Plz post more of those "deer in headlights" photos of Patel.

Because our corporate overlords spend too much of their time at places like the Bohemian Grove. Throw in some twink porn and they will be suitably distracted.

Evidently, you have never seen a mechanic screaming at his socket wrench for rounding the head of a bolt off.

I am struggling to understand the distinction.

The best move would have been to not know, retaining some plausible deniability. But Apple has to have that yummy, yummy revenue.

The Butlerian Jihad cannot come soon enough. Machines should be useful tools serving us, where our emotional connections to them are still based on tool-user and tool.

Fun part? US government is actually pretty good at governing compared to alternatives.

Consider something like it's primary competitor of PRC, where bureaucracy is so hilariously bad that leadership has no idea what going on in the nation, and has to rely on things like electricity consumption numbers when they try to determine how much economic activity has taken place.

Unlikely, as this is a budgetary item. Managers can go to prison for fraud and be liable for damages if they failed to have the person working this role if it is indeed required to be filled for this task. It's a key part in how bureaucracy diffuses responsibility for mistakes, and one thing that bureaucrats tend to follow with religious fervor.

Far more likely scenario is one I list above.