Maybe we can just ban LLM operators spidering content without permission?

Karl Marx clarified it, but it dates back two centuries before that.

This is correct.

People have an annoying habit of redefining terms to mean whatever they want it to if they associate good or bad vibes with it. Americans insistence that "Socialism is when the government does things, especially things I disagree with, the more the government does, the more socialist it is" is a classic example. But yes, equating capitalism and the free market is one of them.

If "capitalism" and "the free market" were the same thing, we'd only be using one of those phrases. Capitalism was given its modern definition by Karl Marx - though the definition was in line with how it'd been used the last 200 years - to describe the ownership class vs everyone else, specifically a class that owns the means of production, and a class that does the physical work. It is not the same as the free market, though arguably any large non-government enterprise becomes close to impossible without capitalism in an unregulated free market. The only other option are cooperatives, and they're difficult to build.

Is this, the increasing restrictions built into tractors for the benefit of the manufacture, capitalism? Yes. In fact, it's both capitalism and the unregulated free market:

- It's capitalism because its being done to benefit the shareholders of the manufacturers of the tractors. And it's particularly so because the people who lose out with locked down tractors are ordinary farmers, one of the rare groups that actually does own its own means of production. Well, sort of - they employ laborers so, there's that. They're not communists yet ;-)
- It's the free market because one sided transactions are perfectly normal if nobody intervenes to ensure they're fair. Free marketeers would argue, indeed, that this article proves that government intervention isn't necessary, farmers cried out for a way to bypass the abusive products the current manufacturers had found it in their interests to build, and so another business saw an opportunity and took it.

But yeah, whoever taught OP and whoever modded you down that the free market and capitalism is the same thing... probably also taught them that thing about socialism. And either way, they were either taught badly themselves, or part of the marketing campaign of making all this *gestures everywhere* look better than it is.

Bingo!

"People are catching on to the fact our machine that looks like it's thinking cannot think and costs more to operate than the people it would replace even if it did what we claim it does, so to convince the rest of the world we're the real thing, we'll pretend to do an industry-wide slowdown, and people won't question why it doesn't improve over the next year or two. Plus it'll make it look like we really do have a machine that can think."

This is about marketing. Basically they're making outrageous unsubstantiated claims about their technology and one great way to hype those claims is to propose something equally outrageous.

There's no substance behind the proposal or logic, outside maybe of wanting to do a very public "slow down", with all players participating, in order to justify a lack of progress that was going to happen anyway.

They did not "withstood AI-driven exploit research". They had fewer bugs than most projects, and they've had to put up with an enormous amount of slop reports, but neither are anything approaching no bugs.

The curl programmers are probably the best C programmers out there at the moment, if I had to do something in C, I'd get them to do it, but I'd still rather avoid C, because even they will end up with bugs in their code. C requires programmers be superhuman.

> The EU cannot produce a modern homegrown CPU that does not have US technology embedded in it.

ARM was produced in the UK at the time the UK was part of the EC/EU. And a quick looksee at CPU development over the decades shows there's no US monopoly in producing CPUs.

As for GNU/Linux, sure, GNU is American, but it's free, why not use it if it's not there free for the taking. But at the time GNU/Linux was released, Minix was virtually as functional - had Tanenbaum released it under the GPL or a more permissive license, there's a good chance - given Linux's history - we'd be using Minix with the Linux kernel today.

Meanwhile if you're watching TV or listening to music today, you're using technology primarily designed in Europe - just ask the Fraunhoffer institute how much they've raked in in royalties over the years. If you're using a web browser, congrats, that started as a European project. Using a 4G phone? You're using LTE, the latest version of GSM, and guess where that started.

Nothing you're saying seems to be based upon anything logical or sane beyond "Rah rah Americans superior, Euros suck". It doesn't make any sense. Technology development is world wide, your PC is made up of technologies developed in the US, in Europe, in China, in Japan, in Taiwan, all over the word.

And China, the EU, and the US, are large enough that they can build the entire stack at home if they want.

No, it sounds like TFA is inaccurate. Bricking software with a perpetual license would guarantee class action lawsuits and lost trust with people who bought the software.

Others are speculating what's actually been "bricked" are Office 365 clients. Which makes far more sense. Microsoft wouldn't want to support older clients for Office 365 for rather obvious reasons, and the upgrade is free if available. The only people left in the lurch would be those whose OSes don't support the newer versions and which cannot be upgraded due to the age of their Macs, which sucks, but is also true of, say, web browsers.

This article is likely ragebait. I'd ignore it unless major news outlets are making the same claims by the end of the week. And they will... if it's true.

Nukes aren't really easy to contain. If Russia launches Nukes, that's the end of Russia, one way or another. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever the rest of the world wouldn't intervene at that point.

> Four years ago the situation was the complete opposite, it was unthinkable that Ukraine might not win the war.

This is completely untrue. When the war started pretty much everyone assumed it'd be a Russian walkover. It was a massive, and positive, surprise when Putin's jackboots turned out to be inadequate for the task of invading a mostly defenseless country, even more so given it was given very little help to defend itself outside of some donations of largely obsolete weaponry from sympathetic countries who were too scared of Putin's nukes to get themselves directly involved.

Literally everyone was surprised. On all sides of the conflict. Even three months in, with it becoming clear Putin's half-swastika waving thugs weren't going to do a walkover, the discussion was whether Russia could politically afford to draw out the war long enough to win it (with Ukraine's chances being based not on might, but the political ramifications of a long drawn out war for the chinless fascist shitwaffle that, for some reason, Russia's somewhat pathetic populace looks up to.)

The question has always been whether Putin has the stamina, not whether Russia is able to beat Ukraine if it just fights for long enough.

Now it's starting to look like Ukraine can probably hold its own indefinitely. That's a big change.

Ukraine has famously been using old obsolete equipment cast off from NATO, not the latest greatest of anything beyond their own home grown stuff.

What is it with the pro-Russia position of the first two posts in this thread? Oh, wait, we know...

Slashdot, maybe it's time to block Russian IP addresses?

> With the separation of L1 cache into data cache and instruction cache, every modern CPU is effectively Harvard architecture.

The CPU itself is still using a model that combines data and instructions, it's just caches are introduced with a lot of intermediate logic so that the performance takes advantage of HA. That's not the same as being HA, any more than having VLIWs in microcode makes something RISC. (Cue thousands responding with "Nu-uh!" despite this being actually how CPUs have pretty much always worked, or at least since the 1960s, the only difference being in the mid-1990s they changed from an interpreter model for microcode to more of a compiler-with-optimizer model.)

Anyway, I'm struggling actually to figure out what the OP would think would be the advantages of an actual HA CPU. Are we really talking about something that wouldn't even be able to load code into memory without the support of separate hardware? There's a reason von Neuman architecture is the standard, even if we now have caches that make things a little more HA-like.

It's a shame finding news articles relevant to a story was impossible prior to now. All those years wasted unable to find a cite with no tools available to help us search the Internet.

That surely wouldn't count as ambient noise nor as something an app would collect though?

Or are apps allowed to listen in to, and transmit to their creator, phone conversations now? (For context, most users wouldn't even expect or agree to the Phone app sending "ambient noise" to Google)

Linux did not ban "ethnic Russians", he banned Russian nationals. He made it clear at the time they were welcome to rejoin if they could provide documentation proving they aren't a legal problem - ie do not have Russian citizenship and aren't employed by a Russian entity.

Russia is under sanctions by most of the world after they unilaterally and without provocation invaded Ukraine and murdered large numbers of its citizens, kidnapping huge numbers more. This war is ongoing, and unsurprisingly Russia is considered a Pariah by most of the world with the noteable exception of the Trump regime. Even the US however is participating in sanctions, and the Linux foundation would be in violation of those sanctions if they allowed Russian legal entities including citizens to participate in Linux development.

I don't know where you get "Ethnic Russian" from, but that's absurd.