Malware is any software that runs on your computer but is intended to serve the interests of someone else.

Calling it malware isn't so much inaccurate as it's unspecific. Not all malware is adware, but 100% of adware is malware.

Realistically, they simply need to increase the price which solves the over-subscription problem and expense problem.

At best, that is wishful thinking.

Welcome to the shiternet. Fuck you because they have you by the balls.

Where did you get that idea? The issue isn't stuff at the bottom of a bottle, it's what's on the label.

Your argument is what is silly because nobody has complained about the plastic identifier under the bottle. This is all about what's printed on the labels.

Fark has no significant redeeming qualities, so I guess... OK, thanks for the update, dustbin of history is just on your left.

Nope, just the packaging. Seriously, you need to the read the article because you are being a total fool.

If they were smart then they would have simply sold land to people on a legit looking website and changed the ownership database. If you are morally bankrupt then you should at least avoid being intellectually bankrupt.

Correct, they are only trying to change it for California. You should read the article closer.

I'm sticking with stone knives and bear skins.

Free speech includes lying.

> "mnemonic"

Johny who?

I wrote a lot of assembly (back in the day) for both the Z80 and the 6502. The Z80 was like a Mac truck. It had some really powerful instructions (LDIR etc) and a great register-set but the 6502 could be a lot faster on one condition -- that you had space available in page zero to exploit the indirect addressing mode that relied heavily on the first 256 bytes of RAM. The Z80 had the advantage that it had on-chip support for refreshing dynamic RAM so systems with more than 4K or so of memory were much easier and cheaper to build using a Z80 than a 6502.

If you were building and programming a system from scratch then the 6502 was the obvious choice but if you were programming a "store bought" 6502 system such as the Apple, Atari or Commodore, many of those valuable first 256bytes (page zero) were already in use by the ROM-based system software so things became a bit trickier.

Ah... happy days.

From: "On Funding Digital Public Works" https://pdfernhout.net/on-fund...
====
What have funding policies in automotive intelligence wrought?

Consider again the self-driving cars mentioned earlier which now cruise some streets in small numbers. The software "intelligence" doing the driving was primarily developed by public money given to universities, which generally own the copyrights and patents as the contractors. Obviously there are related scientific publications, but in practice these fail to do justice to the complexity of such systems. The truest physical representation of the knowledge learned by such work is the codebase plus email discussions of it (plus what developers carry in their heads).

We are about to see the emergence of companies licensing that publicly funded software and selling modified versions of such software as proprietary products. There will eventually be hundreds or thousands of paid automotive software engineers working on such software no matter how it is funded, because there will be great value in having such self-driving vehicles given the result of America's horrendous urban planning policies leaving the car as generally the most efficient means of transport in the suburb. The question is, will the results of the work be open for inspection and contribution by the public? Essentially, will those engineers and their employers be "owners" of the software, or will they instead be "stewards" of a larger free and open community development process?

Open source software is typically eventually of much higher quality and reliability because more eyes look over the code for problems and more voices contribute to adding innovative solutions. About 35,000 Americans are killed every year in driving fatalities, and hundreds of thousands more are seriously injured. Should the software that keeps people safe on roads, and which has already been created primarily with public funds, not also be kept under continuous public scrutiny?

Without concerted action, such software will likely be kept proprietary because that will be more profitable sooner to the people who get in early, and will fit into conventional expectations of business as usual. It will likely end up being available for inspection and testing at best to a few government employees under non-disclosure agreements. We are talking about an entire publicly funded infrastructure about to disappear from the public radar screen. There is something deeply wrong here.

And while it is true many planes like the 757 can fly themselves already for most of their journey, and their software is probably mostly proprietary, the software involved in driving is potentially far more complex as it requires visual recognition of cues in a more complex environment full of many more unpredictable agents operating on much faster timescales. Also, automotive intelligence will touch all of our lives on a daily basis, where as aircraft intelligence can be generally avoided in daily life.

Decisions on how this public intellectual property related to automotive intelligence will be handled will affect the health and safety of every American and later everyone in any developed country. Either way, the automotive software engineers and their employers will do well financially (for example, one might still buy a Volvo because their software engineers are better and they do more thorough testing of configurations). But which way will the public be better off:
* totally dependent on proprietary intelligences under the hoods of their cars which they have no way of understanding, or instead
* with ways to verify what those intelligences do, understand how they operate, and make contributions when they can so such automotive intelligences serve humane purposes better?

If, for example, automotive intelligence was developed under some form of copyleft license like the GNU General Public License, then at least car owners or their "software mechanics" would be assured they could have access to the software in source form to ensure safe operation. What might be "street legal" in terms of software modifications might be a different story -- in the same way people can't legally drive with a cracked windshield or a broken headlight. For example, software changes might need to first be proven safe in simulation before being provisionally "street legal". But, the important thing is, foundations or government agencies funding code development could insist on some form of free licensing terms for automotive intelligence as a matter of public policy.

There are many other areas of human activities that the exponential growth of technology will effect. Automotive intelligence is just one of them that is here now and which I am familiar with from tangential interactions at universities with people developing it. In enough time similar issues will arise for the software behind household robotics or intelligent devices that assist the elderly or handicapped. The IBOT wheelchair by Dean Kamen using complex software to balance on two wheels is just the beginning of such devices.

Note the IBOT wheelchair was developed entirely with private funds it seems, so the reasoning in this essay does not apply directly to it. Also, in general Dean Kamen is a role model of a socially responsible for-profit inventor. Still, the issue arises of whether "Johnson & Johnson" should be funding such development, as was the case, as opposed to, say, the "Robert Wood Johnson Foundation", as was not, given the public policy issue of whether individuals should be continually dependent for personal needs on proprietary software. In either case it would be worth it to pay billions for such innovation, and the public will pay that in the end as a toll on for such devices.

There is a real question here of how our society will proceed -- mainly closed or mainly open. It is reflected in everything the non-profit world does -- including the myths it lives by. The choice of myth can be made in part by the funding policies set by foundations and government agencies. The myth that funders may be living by is the scarcity economics myth. How does that myth effect the digital public works funding cycle?
====

Glad to see more people -- including also with Princeton roots -- taking up the cause!!! :-)

Nice platitudes, but these workers are not anomalies. They may become the norm. AI is a big fucking mess right now. It (largely) doesn't work as well as most think and is far inferior to what is promised...but....if that changes, we're FUCKED!!! Once you can automate my job, you can automate anyone's! Are you ready for the financial apocalypse once every office worker's jobs is automated away?...every accountant...every lawyer...every engineer...every designer....1000s of professions I can't think of at the moment, which are the cornerstones of our middle class will be decimated.

OK, so smarty pants...you retired?...you pivoted to healthcare??...welp...I hope your 401k doesn't include companies with huge number of customers impacted by the job apocalypse?...if you and your younger loved ones pivoted to hands-on healthcare, like nursing or doctor positions....well....do you work for free? Who is going to pay your bills when the economy collapses? You'll make it, but life will SUUUUUCK when you're relying on the gov alone to keep the lights on.

Maybe you're special and open a restaurant or bar...same problem...who has money? OK, so now the layoffs spread from white collar workers to EVERYONE because so many relied on middle managers and accountants and lawyers and engineers as customers.

So your tone-deaf comment about living beneath your means and building wealth? I hope you picked wisely...because if the white collar job apocalypse does happen, it's going to impact most of the Dow, most of the S&P 500, the real estate market, etc. This is scary stuff to be taken seriously. What is being threatened is like nothing seen in hundreds of years, if ever. I have enough to retire today....but yeah....I have a fuckton in stocks that are quite vulnerable....OK, I get lucky and cash out in time?...well...I have no clue what will happen to interest rates, but I can't imagine them doing anything but plummeting....so yeah, I was planning on have sustaining income....nope, retirement may be me just eating away at my savings at the exact rate I live....rather than watching it slowly increase, as I had hoped .

Not strange if you've ever played a fighting game against someone not into computer games. They learn quickly that by just mashing buttons randomly they can often get a win without actually learning anything about the game. Same principle.

Of course they didn't. The name of the game is "disrupting an industry". Because on paper and in investor pitches, everything is straightforward, simple, and was practically waiting for them.

That reality is more messy, has more edge cases, doesn't always follow your process, is something you don't tell the investors and don't consider in your service until you've had the chance to cash out.