Comment Why? (Score 3, Insightful) 33
Real question: why? I mean, you're fucking neglecting the browser that the whole organization is supposed to be about but here you are dumping money into shitty AI. So tell me, WHY?!
Real question: why? I mean, you're fucking neglecting the browser that the whole organization is supposed to be about but here you are dumping money into shitty AI. So tell me, WHY?!
There is no need for those Orwellian nightmares to exist.
There will be no economy for them to spend it in. There will be no more production. Of anything.
Incorrect. The government will still be spending money because they will need stuff and be able to print more money which is why the company that makes true AI will gain control of the government. As such, they will have people doing what machines have yet to be able to master.
The outcome will be like that of the short story Manna.
If AI can eliminate that much work (a big if), then the massive layoffs will tank the economy, and their stock will go down.
They will have control of the deployment which means they will be able to easily make themselves the richest of the rich by correctly choosing and shorting rival companies that are about to be obliterated by their own deployments. They will use this power not to simply enrich themselves but to become the richest of the richest, the very top of the 0.1%. They can use this wealth to insulate themselves as they slowly take control of the economy and in-turn the government.
The question you should be asking is if your government is prepared for this possibility.
Why is the don't tread on me crowd silent now?
"Don't tread on me" is literally about themselves and their tribes, not people in general. They are the ones that want to be the boot.
That not seem like an overly harsh sentence to you?
You don't seem to realize how the police/corporate world sees offenses.
* harming a person financially: meh, if you solve the case (the cops sure won't) then they may get punished but it's hard to say.
* harming a person physically: bad, go to jail but it better be an strong case.
* potentially harming a well-funded corporation: maximum punishment, no mercy.
* making well-funded corporation look like a bunch of fools: eternal damnation isn't enough.
This is far from the first time that embarrassing a corporation has lead to excessive punishment.
It seems to me there should be 2 or 3 unmanned moon-loop missions to iron out nearly all known glitches. And perhaps do some stress-testing while at it: test the margins.
Regardless how it feels, they are saying it's ready. If it's not ready then we'll find out. More importantly, how much more money are you willing to put into this mission? There's no reason for NASA to waste more money on this money pit of a project than they already have. Want to double NASA's budget? OK, we'll do more tests. Until then, nope.
Raising the specter of AI being conscious will give the general public the impression that AI is actually intelligent and human-like because that's how people ignorant of AI think about it. That we know for a fact is dangerous because we've seen what people do with them.
HOWEVER, the real question is if we should even care even if AI has become conscious.
If it's capable of suffering then logically a conscious AI would make us aware (in some manner) that it's suffering so that we could alter it's state so that it would not suffer.
If it's incapable of suffering then it doesn't matter if it's conscious or not because it will be treated a tool.
Since we have not been informed of it's suffering, it's easy to conclude that either AI is content with it's situation or it's simply not conscious.
This means that regardless of it being conscious, it will continue being a tool.
So to answer your question, Porsche didn't sell more EVs they sold less of everything else.
That still means that people wanted EVs more than ICEV and that is still in direct contradiction of what people have claimed on Slashdot.
Now I'm very confused because such honest purveyors of truth have told me repeatedly on Slashdot that "NoBoDy WaNtS tO bUy An Ev!"
I ask you friends, how could this possibly happen? I've been this told one thing repeatedly but reality does not appear to reflect what I've been told!
If you had a sound explanation then I beg of you to share it with little ol'e me because I do fear this most incongruous behavior is causing me to come down with a dreadful case of the vapors!
It's not like they didn't know this was happening, it's more like they finally have the evidence that conclusively identifies that solar wind transferring these molecules. I mean, there was even a whole 2017 study outlined exactly how solar wind and Earth’s magnetic field would transport oxygen to the moon and it's unsurprising that this validated the theory.
This is kinda like showing that the wind blew a weed from your neighbor's weed-filled lawn onto your lawn which is why weed of the exact same type have started growing in your lawn. It was a "well, duh!" situation but now it's beyond doubt.
As a fellow dinosaur, I laud thee.
However, I'm even more restrictive because I want a distribution without with stuff written in C or C++, using musl, not glibc. It may seem heretical but I also wish Perl would die. The only script language I'm want to have on my system is POSIX shell script. I don't even want AWK, despite it being POSIX. I also want to see Linux stop using GCC extensions and use standard C11.
To the people that are now throwing things at their monitor in outrage: it is not heresy and I will not recant!... so I'll see you at the inquisition.
Have you considered clicking the "About" menu item which is prominently displayed at the top of the page on the left hand side? It links to here: https://t2linux.com/about.html
However, it seems like you want to be spoon-fed, so here you go.
T2 SDE Linux Project
T2 SDE (System Development Environment) is a highly customizable and portable build system for creating complete Linux distributions from source. It serves as a robust toolkit for building everything from embedded platforms to full desktop systems, offering unmatched flexibility and control.
Project Origins: From ROCK Linux to T2
The T2 project traces its roots back to the pioneering ROCK Linux distribution, originally developed in the late 1990s by Claire Wolf. ROCK Linux was an ambitious source-based distribution designed to be clean, modular, and flexible. As the community and technical needs evolved, the core ideas and technologies of ROCK Linux were carried forward into a modern, more advanced system—T2 SDE.
Since its fork in 2004, T2 has expanded support for cross-compilation to dozens of CPU architectures, evolved its build system, and continued the legacy of a fully open, configurable Linux distribution framework.
Key Features
Source-Based Build System: Every component is built from source, ensuring transparency, auditability, and control
Cross-Compilation Support: Seamlessly build binaries for over 20 architectures, including x86, ARM, RISC-V, PowerPC, MIPS, and more
Highly Modular: Over 5000 package recipes available, each independently maintained and configurable
Customizable Targets: Build anything from minimal embedded firmware to full-featured desktop and server environments
OtherOS Home-brew: Supports building packages on other OS, including macOS and BSD using one unified package repository
Long-Term Upkeep: Active development with regular updates, security patches, and modern upstream software integration
Use Cases
Embedded Linux systems and firmware
Custom desktop or server distributions
Hardened, auditable OS builds for secure deployments
Academic and research environments
Operating system experimentation and prototyping
Why Choose T2?
Unlike binary distributions where much is hidden behind precompiled packages, T2 gives you total control over every piece of software on your system. Its clean and extensible design makes it ideal for developers who want to:
Understand how their system works from the ground up
Strip down Linux for minimal or embedded use
Harden or customize builds for specialized environments
Contribute to a transparent and powerful open-source ecosystem
While our understanding of gravity indicates that the affects will be nearly identical, it's not the same. Furthermore, there may be some effects of gravity that we have yet to understand which do not conform to simulated gravity via centrifuge.
E Pluribus Unix