Confronting the national government of China takes a lot of preparation to do with a successful outcome. I haven't seen much success in Tibet or the South China Sea. If you're able to provide or cripple access to some resource that government wants, or if you've got hypersonically deliverable nukes in orbit, you might be able to be successful.

Or do the people hired to make them have "my work can't be used to train an AI" as part of their contract?

It seems to me that if the sample size is large enough for the statistical functions not to give spurious results, then statistical results from anonymized data ought not to reveal identifying information about any single participant in the study. Although, it could reveal whether an individual meets the criteria to participate in the study.

I am and AI from Albania. You have been randomly selected to receive 14.77963% of the national treasury. Please enter your banking data in the following form...

Sure,... how much more to add AMC+, Discovery+ and Acorn? It'd be nice to have everything as one lump bill.

I believe the notion behind the brain drain idea is that the people who leave are confident in their ability to find employment elsewhere, and since brains is a large part of the basis for employment, then the people who leave have the brains to market to the next employer. However, it occurs to me that more than people with the freedom to move, the people who leave are people who, encountering an unpleasant situation, take action to improve their lives. So, if the company values not having the boat rocked, these are the people whose departure it may prefer.

Mint forgeries of the coins of space aliens. Odds are, they won't know you're doing it.

I'm not sure it matters. The destruction looks like it's after the appeal. So, while they're appealing, other employees can use the existing dataset to produce a work that can be loaded to generate replacement datasets after the originals are destroyed.

Exactly! "Those other people will be unhappy, and I'm fine with that."

The overwhelming majority of the public lives is big cities and knows they won't personally have to lose any real estate to 30% for nature legislation. I'll bet they don't support the taxes to purchase land at owner's asking price for this purpose. It's more of a "those other people will be unhappy, and I'm fine with that" opinion.

When I look at the page for SoftEther, it looks like a person could read the instructions and put it on a Mini PC running windows. But it's possible that sort of thing wouldn't work, which is why I put the ? at the end of my sentence.

If the Family Plan is restricted to connections from your house, could you just host a vpn server, so all the connections go through your house?

Probably less.

No the old (still exists but is now buried) site is .gov The new site is .us .us is for anything in the United States, just like .uk is for anything in the United Kingdom, .ch is for anything in Switzerland and .cx is for anything on Christmas Island. Climate.org is owned by The Climate Institute. This organization was started in 1986. I don't know when they bought the domain.

Have AI replace the owners, too. Lots of businesses fail owing to spectacularly bad decision making on the part of the owners. Make a way for AIs to compete with these people, and see what happens when half the businesses are "owned" by entities that don't give a damn about paying 99% income tax.