Right, the land rightfully belongs to whoever owned it second-to-last! Not to the people the second-to-last owners forcibly ejected from it, of course, and not to the people who own it now, only to the second-to-last.

</sarcasm>

I think we should have more respect than we do for the indigenous peoples, but pretending that there was no war and no forcible land grabs before the Europeans arrived is not just ahistorical but ignorant of human nature. Polynesian history, which includes the Hawaiians, is incredibly bloody. The Europeans dominated when they arrived not because they were more violent -- there's a good case to be made that they were less, though it's a question of degrees, not kind -- but because the Enlightenment gave them much better tools. And, of course, because centuries of city living had bred up a bunch of diseases, but that's part of the same story.

Did European arms and power make it "right" that the natives were conquered? No. But it wasn't "right" that the natives conquered each other, either. Humanity -- also as a result of the Enlightenment and the long, slow development of humanism -- has become more moral and less violent, and we now have more respect for other cultures and other peoples. And that's a good thing! But it doesn't make sense to project our own moral views back in time, and it definitely doesn't make sense to do so selectively, demonizing the winners and lionizing the losers.

The only thing that really makes sense is to apply our improved (though still very imperfect) morality to the situation we have now, messy, complicated and conflicted as it is. It's nice to give the native Hawaiian culture some respect, but it's wrong to give it more respect than that of Hawaii today.

Thanks for sharing!

Ironically, the industry trend of doing SaaS has pushed the need for customer support way up, compared with the traditional model of selling a finished product once and issuing refunds or replacements in rare cases.

To be clear, the language would have to change if you wanted it to outlaw corporate surveillance, because the existing one applies only to government. And I suppose the new one would also have to explain "corporate" and how that's different from other kinds of organizations or surveillance by individuals.

Everyone has to make their own decisions. I would discourage people from believing that SLTS kernels will be anything like secure by the end of their lifecycle. If that doesn't matter for some application, then fine. If it does matter then arguing that the SLTS kernel must be secure because recertifying is expensive is... not really an argument.

FWIW, in my day job I'm making this same point to people building cars with an expected 20-year lifespan. I think the right conclusion is "Don't use Linux". If you need long-term assurance, use something smaller, simpler, with much less attack surface. And then buy an ironclad long-term support contract for that.

Truth Social I'm sure. As hard as it is to believe, there are still people who think Trump is a genius, and still want to "own the Libs".

Well, yes. But the politicians say the scientists are wrong.

Who are you going to believe? Geeky nerd types, or the people who actually run the real world?

It's thankless, yes. Necessary, or even a good idea? I think that's debatable. Actually LTS is probably a good idea... but I'm very skeptical of SLTS. I don't think CIP is going to be successful at keeping 10 year-old kernel versions secure. If you need 10 years, you should either plan to do the work necessary to upgrade to new kernel versions periodically or you should assume that it's just going to be insecure and isolate it or otherwise shield it from attack.

That's what they did the last time. And here we are again. And there we'll be again in the future.

None of that responds to my point.

Firstly, US courts have no jurisdiction in most places, so what.

Twoly, copyright is governed by international treaties which *are* ultra-restrictive by their nature. Wishing it wasn't doesn't change the fact that stuff written online has automatic ownership unless explicitly unrestricted. And no, it doesn't need to be strengthened, it already is strong enough. Some say too strong.

Threely, not looking to get rid of AI, looking to make the pirate companies pay, because...The Law. If they disappear, they can be replaced by a new generation of law-abiding AI companies.

Fourly, open source code is explicitly unrestricting copyrights under specific licenses. But open source AI is no such thing, as it's initially copyright encumbered too, due to training issues.

Fifthly, do I personally care about open source AI? No. I care about scientific papers, and I care about new ideas, but I view current state of the art AI as statistical toys. I'd actually like to see *real* progress, which isn't possible as long as everyone rehashes the old ideas (with more GPUs and more bandaids).

Anyway, that's what *bad* AI means to me. That was the topic, no?

The Indian AI call centers didn't last, people didn't like them. The Artificial ones won't last either, for the same reason. Everything old is new again.

The real world locations for shooting are often a result of financial incentives. The studio gets some funding from the local government responsible for the shooting location. It's no different from paid product placement by large private companies, except the product here is the surroundings and the play is for tourism dollars.

Sloppy AI generated cities would be pointless, and quite possibly misrepresenting stakeholders.

Bad AI includes AI that infringes copyrights during the training phase. If this AI has been trained (even partially) on content found on the Internet, then it's bad AI. (*)

(*) There is no fair use or implied consent for documents sitting on web servers around the world. Either there's an explicit licensing agreement by the actual copyright holder that permits you to copy the file to your computer, or you're infringing, Mr AI.

You're confusing the breaker sizing with the wire sizing. Code requires the breaker to be about 80% of the safe capacity of the wiring to maintain this safety margin. Breakers allow the rated capacity, continuously -- and even allow a little more for short periods.

Yeah, it's going to be hard to establish a plausible positive ROI for interstellar travel. I think even public funding for probes will be problematic, since it will take years just to get flyby photos. Probably the first flyby will be funded by some rich guy.