See Jack Williamson's "The Humanoids", which he wrote in reaction to Asimiv's stories and made precisely that point.

. "Second rule: To obey humans, such that it doesn't achieve agency and aspiration on its own. And the third: To do what humans tell it"

Isn't that the same thing?

The Third Law was that robots must protect their own existence (except where that would conflict with the First or Second Law).

I don't want to be weain' no rabid fungus!

Can we finally know whether or not there is beer on the sun?!

You enjoy your horse dewormer, I'll take the mRNA gene-editing.

Yes, sadly, they do not cure mental illness.

I have such fond memories of EA from the '80s, but as far as I'm concerned, that's a completely different and unrelated entity.

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".

As technology improves, the customer experience gets worse.

It's been that way for at least 15 years, probably longer. It's the weirdest damn thing to watch; we have all this power and sophistication, but development houses can't seem to get out of their own way and make a product that doesn't A) Suck balls, and B) gets worse with each iteration.

MS is the most famous example of this, but they're hardly alone in this practice.

That mentality never left Microsoft. They just to have work harder to maintain plausible deniability. Plausible, that is, to the anti-trust courts and politicians, none of whom know anything about technology.

Thats cute. Now put it in front of the public without the person on the other end following your demo script...

All of the sudden its shit.

My company has done this as well, and it works great for the guy who made it, who talks to it with knowledge of its capabilities and nuances... but then as soon as anyone with a slightly different choice of words comes along ... its fucked.

If the justification for a new law is "it's for the children", then the law is junk and the politicians behind it are trying to con you with something.

Every single time.

I don't think that's likely. GOG has been around for almost 20 years. If they were to renege on providing offline installers, what could that possibly gain them? That only makes sense if they are planning to reimplement DRM, and that would immediately kill the company.

More accurate to say the bill of rights prohibits the government ( largely ) from certain actions.

Taking this a step further, who enforces "human rights" in dealing with businesses and citizens, if not the government? Who's to say that's a good thing anyway. Why can't I restrict access to me and mine from someone saying things I don't agree with? That's if you believe your "human rights" are equally and fairly applied, of course, which we all know they aren't.

No, the only sane approach to something like freedom of speech is to restrict the government and otherwise let people do as they will.

You seem to be under the impression that the "master" these days is on analog film. It ain't. It's a digital computer file. There is no difference between "master" and "copy of the master". And as someone else has said, the problem isn't that they don't have other copies of the master, it's that somebody who's not them has a copy of the master and can churn out perfect pirate copies.