I swear I read the headline as
Beer can tools to solve problems

We have always been at war with EastAsia.

With Micro-USB, it was exactly the same, just five years early.

Long before the E.U. legislation went into effect, there were long consultations which standard to adhere too. So tech companies had enough time to read the writing on the wall and move. That was the reason why USB-C was ubiquitous everywhere when the due date came. Apple was struggling for some time, debating the idea, but finally caved with the 16 series.

Your argument is a typical strawman argument. You postulate the idea that the E.U. came up with USB-C as the next standard out of the blue, and then argue that companies were already transitioning when the legislation was finalized. But your postulate is (probably intentionally) wrong.

I can't tell what point you think you're making with your first sentence. It has booting to do with this.

You could check the law if you want to know how it define "protected"! There are three prongs, connected by "or"; the broadest one says a "protected computer" is any "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States". If someone orders from Amazon, streams from Netflix or uses a cloud-based LLM from the computer, it's protected under CFAA. As Wikipedia puts it:

I answered your question before you asked it. You didn't like the answer so you arbitrarily claimed you were talking about morality rather than laws. Do you think setting booby traps is moral? If so, that's a reflection that you are not just a dipshit but a sociopath as well.

Not exactly. Personal originally meant "not shared with another person". Originally, it meant a computer only you have access to, only you install and run software, and only you store and retrieve data.

To be clear, you are a dipshit who won't answer basic questions to defend your awful analogy. If I warn you that being a dipshit might lead to getting shot, does that excuse anyone who actually shoots you?

The law in question here makes it a crime when someone "knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer". Do you think that's satisfied by your sign hypothetical? I think you've left out some of the elements related to intent, and made the "causes the transmission" element much less clear. That's why I did not say anything like what you suggest.

Booby traps are still illegal and immoral even if you have "keep out - no trespassing" signs all over your property, and in this case it wasn't even the malicious abuser's own property.

Intentionally destroying somebody's data is still a crime if they have backups. The intent is the difference between this and equipment failure.

Do you think that women should go around in burqas and only have themselves to blame if they get raped when not wearing a burqa?

In this case, that's the person who snuck malicious instructions into the prompt, intending for it to destroy data.

This isn't rocket science. There are projects that do the same kind of thing conscientiously -- they have an AGENTS.md or a section in their README that basically tells an AI agent not to write code or create a bug report or whatever. Bad users can work around that, but those bad users are less harmful than the kind of person who prompt-injects malware.

The LLM companies are not causing the transmission of the command to delete things. If anyone, it's the jqwik developer who made test code generate the instruction at runtime in a hidden form.

The intent to damage is crystal clear here, and the attempt to hide the command makes it easy to assign responsibility for the knowing transmission of the command.

LLMs are unpredictable, but that's a very different threat than malicious instructions hidden by an attacker. The person who hid the malicious instructions is analogous to the hypothetical person who trained a dangerous dog and released it in a kindergarten.

I was also thinking of https://xkcd.com/323/, specifically the part "You can't just give a team of coders a year's supply of whiskey", because that's what AI coding looks like to me. Instead of giving devs just enough rope to hang themselves, we're now giving dilettante coders the keys to the entire rope industry.