But a computer I can't load my own code on is no longer a general purpose computer - it's a walled-garden appliance and I'm not going to buy it.

I'm OK with stupid when it is self-defeating and self-harming.

I'm not OK with stupid when it tries to force the rest of us to come along for the ride.

> If a company (imagine a developer-owner, one-man show) stops hosting the only live server for a game because he's taking care of an ill spouse, why should he be obligated to make significant software modifications, host those patches, or create documentation instructing how to create and host a the game via a private server. And if he doesn't do so, then he has to refund everyone at the HIGHEST PRICE for which the game has sold in the last 12 months?

Like it's not child's play to include the capability from the beginning? Or to carry business insurance against the liability?

Release the server code and documentation (which you should always have and always have up-to-date), and a client patch allowing arbitrary server addresses (which you should have planned on and therefore it should be a simple patch).

Then it's up to the public to figure it out.

Yeah, climate change is a bitch when it happens on human timescales. "You shouldn't live where it's too hot" isn't really that fair to say when the place starts changing during your own lifetime.

People really shouldn't live in places where they die if modern technology gives out for a day or two.

In a cold climate you can revert to burning things, but if it's too hot and the power goes out, it's a much bigger issue. Worse if there is too much demand on local water sources or importing food from far away because it can't grow in the local climate.

My solution is manually forcing checkpoints. I ask for a specific correction, then a full code dump. I keep an updated copy of the basic prompt plus the latest code and dump it into a fresh session to lose all the baggage.

It's clunky, but I get better results than trying to reason with a mindless AI.

>Video games from the 1980s.

Probably not all of them, but it is surprising how many ROM images exist out there and how available emulators are to run them on modern computers, if you look hard enough.

I've seen every game I ever played on my C=64, and I've seen a lot more for every console I've ever heard of except ColicoVision. I assume those exist as well, somewhere.

>For example, it forgets parts of the code after awhile and has to be reminded to reuse a function instead of rewriting it.

This is something that has frustrated me when playing with AI - nothing is fixed. The nature of the beast is vagueness, and I want to be able to lock things down or exclude them.

The longer the session, the more likely the AI will screw up something you were already happy with. They have no sense of time, so trying to block something means nothing as the AI still includes things from before the block request.

For serious use, the ability to correct and have the corrections stick seems very basic to me. I consider it so fundamental it should never have needed to be mentioned.

I'd love a nice HUD on normal-looking glasses, driven by a local connection to my phone.

Never would I ever touch anything that's basically a camera ingesting everything for submission to Facebook.

The moment I hear it's from 'X', that's exactly what I presume, because if you have any decency at all you don't choose a site that protects Nazism for your social media fix.

Guilt by association isn't perfect, but some times the choice of associates speaks so loudly you can't ignore it.

There are some things where I think it's fair to never trust that person fully again. Ever. But we need a way to trust them enough to let them live and participate in society if we believe they are rehabilitated while still protecting everyone around them.

I'm sure that's not easy, but it has to be easier than lifetime incarceration.

Look at the prison models of almost any other industrialized Western country - make even the slightest genuine effort to reform people instead of considering them subhuman to be inhumanely tortured by the circumstances of their confinement followed by blocking them from participating in the economy upon release and results will improve.

Improve public education and remove inequalities and you remove crime as the best option for catching up to everyone else.

AI won't be used to help convicts, because nobody in the US wants to help them. It'll be used to better manage their shackles for increased profits.

1) Typically the systems monitoring, if not the systems themselves, is dumped on the police along with the funding. I agree in principle that police data systems should be handled by an arms-length agency without ties to any particular police service. I also believe this should include their body cams, interview room video, and even their fleet and weapons/ammo tracking. They should not have any oversight over their own data because that leads to the potential for abuse.

2) At least where I am... officers can query, but queries of federal databases are audited and monitored. You've never seen someone walked out of a building faster than when they are caught with their hand in that particular cookie jar. And yes, charges happen for the serious incidents. However, that still leaves a lot of room for abuse of non-federal data.

And that title is backed by the fact that a decade ago or so I was implementing proper auditing to track cops because they were... abusing video systems and it made it into the news.

Cops are just people, the badge doesn't confer ethics or strength of character. It often does confer a sense of superiority to the general public and a belief that they're above some of the rules the rest of us abide by.

Even the best, most upright cop should never be taken at their word - there should always be some form of oversight. Because they're humans.

Instead of the UK's racism continuing to simmer, they got a good lesson in the fact that they're not really better than anyone else and they made a damn stupid decision.

When they rejoin (which long term seems like a pretty reasonable assumption), they're going to have to rejoin as equal partners which means not with the special rights they had last time. Which is good for the EU (including, ultimately, a rejoined UK).

Without Brexit the UK would have continued in its privileged position which is objectively unfair and probably would have helped some unfortunate attitudes thrive longer.