That's nonsense. Customers enable the creation of businesses. If you give The People money, then businesses can be created to get that money.

You do not have to do this. Just give the money to The People and they will be ready to spend it, and businesses will be created to get it. It's that simple. You're also ignoring the fact that the rich are sitting on unprecedented cash reserves, so moving money from their pockets to those of The People will not decrease economic activity, it will increase it.

You seem to be working hard to disprove their theory with the invalidity of your argument.

The claim is that it always required more intelligence to operate a computer well than most people have, not that it requires more now than it used to, and that practice will never make some people good at it because they simply don't have the necessary faculties.

This is a good reason for the interface to coddle people who need coddling, so long as it can also be configurable not to do that so it can get out of the way. I find peak simple to be Android. I also have a work iPhone, and it is not quite as simple to navigate to everything. The preferences in particular are not as navigable; it's a function most users use very seldom if at all, but it could be made simpler for them. On iPhone in particular I find myself leaning on search, which is fine for me because I know what things are called and also alternate names for them, but the average person isn't going to have the background for that — nor should they have to.

Fraud in social security is low, the more we fund the IRS the more fraud they prevent, all of this can be run very well if it's simply funded. There's all kinds of reporting requirements to make sure we can find fraud when it occurs. Even the obviously permanently disabled have to make reports in response to random quality control reviews.

All of that makes sense, which is why I could see it happening in the EU, but not in the US or probably much of anywhere else.

On the other hand, are you also going to compel them to continue to provide downloads? Or does this also include giving up the right to restrict redistribution of the software?

I have a TP-Link router, as a backup for my Linksys WRT1200AC. Both run OpenWRT. I loaded the Linksys with it on about day three, I wanted to try out the stock firmware for long enough to have some kind of valid opinion, but had no intention of using it long term and only bought the router because of its advertised OpenWRT compatibility. Similarly, I only bought the TP-Link router after checking the OpenWRT Table of Hardware.

All of which is just a long way to say that I wouldn't buy any router where I was dependent on the manufacturer for firmware. The Cisco backdoors taught me that. Unfortunately I still have to have driver firmware binaries, which could have back doors in them too, but they would be less likely to give access to the whole system and more just to the Wi-Fi communications, and I am using my AP backwards (to avoid cabling.)

But by all means, yes, let us have open source wifi firmware.

Does this really prevent ASLR? I was under the impression that happened at runtime, while this is about getting the same binary out of the compilation process.

What does this mean? The same as what? People chose to maybe get a $100 prize as opposed to definitely getting a $100 prize? I don't get this.

Exactly. You cannot trust the model to produce code and a human who knows how it should work has to check up on it, you cannot trust the model to produce tests and a human who knows how they work has to check up on those as well. This may reduce the work they have to do, but it doesn't reduce the need for them to know things, and may even increase it.

Yes, but then it applies the one that looks most like the right one that it's seen before, and while that allows it to fix the most common problems, it also lets them screw up in unexpected and even inhuman ways (which might be harder to detect and debug) in unusual situations. So if you want them to write you a fart app great, but if you want them to not only be able to do a shit job it's a problem.

I actually think that's still valuable, but ultimately the quality of software is going to come down to the quality of the testing, and this is already a thing that is often inadequate.

I already suspect that half of 'em are AI, but I can't resist snark

"Anker goes up, then maybe we'll get our stuff from someplace that doesn't have to ride a boat in order to reach us, say, Texas Instruments or Hewlett Packard. Or Raytheon, General Dynamics, etc'

That's a list of defense contractors plus HP which is probably the single most enshittified American corporation of all time, virtually all of whose products are made overseas you fucking idiot. How many thousands of dollars do you want to pay for a milspec cable that is actually inferior to what you've been getting from China?

Slashdot was not meant to be packed full of shit either, so fuck off.

"Trump is not the problem, he's just a symptom."

There are a number of cases where the symptoms can kill.

Trump will only kill you is not a compelling statement in his defense, nor a compelling argument that we should focus elsewhere.

"The argument should not be "you are a bad person for only caring about you and your own."

Yeah! What would Jesus say about that!? You know, the guy Republicans keep citing as their justification? I don't consider such a mythical figure to be relevant today, except that they keep claiming he is and then shitting on everything that character stood for.

You quoted this part despite not believing in it or understanding it:

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

The purpose of government is to secure those things for all people. If they don't help with that then they shouldn't exist. Conversely, that's also why they exist. Not to help you profit in ways that harm others, but to help you both exist.

Your willful ignorance is sad at best.