You are correct. That is indeed handled by the shell, not the program run from the command line.

Your analysis is more facile than is theirs.

The only thing this proves is you can't buy an unpopular policy with a mere $100M.

Link

Which if they hadn't completely lost their way would be unnecessary because anything not related to browsing would be an addon.

No, they don't. They don't actually listen to users.

I use Linux specifically because of the license. Linux succeeded because of the license. If Ubuntu wants to change what made Linux successful then the obvious thing to do is to change to not using Ubuntu.

Yes that is what it is supposed to do. You opened a pipe to a file destructively, it did what you asked. Don't ask for that if you don't want it. Once you do that the original file is gone. Either append with >> or write to a temp file next time.

And meanwhile, you keep presenting nothing more than absurd pedantic deflection from the means that LLMs actually use to achieve tasks, trying to mislead people into thinking that they're just disguised probability tables, ignoring the actual consequences of your derailment of the conversation from actual mechanisms to an exponentially-exploding model of the consequences of said actual mechanism, and even in your pedantism, failing to understand the difference between a Markovian state (the physical hardware state) and a Nth-order autoregressive process (the linguistic processing).

First of all, congratulations on constructing the most blatant false dichotomy Slashdot has seen this year. You genuinely seem to believe the only two options that exist in human parenting are:

1) Striking a defenseless human being who weighs a third of your body weight.
2) Being their "buddy," never setting boundaries, and letting them run feral.

If the only tool in your parenting arsenal to enforce a boundary is physical force, that isn't "discipline", it's an intellectual and emotional failure on the part you, the adult. Hitting a child is the lazy shortcut for an adult who threw an emotional tantrum because they ran out of words and patience.

And as for your demand for "logical and factual" explanations? Modern society didn't "fail to justify" why we stopped hitting kids. You just chose to plug your ears and ignore five decades of research. For example, the Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor meta-analysis, looking at 50 years of data from 160,000 children across dozens of peer-reviewed studies, found NO evidence that physical punishment improves compliance or long-term behavior. None. Whatsoever. What it did find, consistently and across every demographic, was a direct correlation with increased aggression, antisocial behavior, anxiety, depression, and impaired cognitive development.

It teaches the exact opposite of accountability: striking a child doesn't teach them why an action was wrong; it teaches them fear of getting caught, resentment toward authority, and the core lesson that might makes right - that when you’re bigger and angry, you use violence to impose your will.

Take crime trends, and examine your thesis: if removing physical punishment created "unaccountable grown-ass children wreaking havoc" then violent crime in the west should have skyrocketed as corporal punishment collapsed over the last forty years. In reality, violent crime has fallen dramatically since its peak in the early 1990s.

there is a fundamental difference between a spanking and a beating.

Try that defense anywhere else in civilization. If you hit your spouse to "correct" them, it's domestic battery. If you hit an employee because they rambled or disobeyed you, it's assault. If you hit a dog with a board for chewing a shoe, it's animal cruelty.

The only context where people like you defend physical violence is when the victim is a small child who can neither defend themselves nor escape. You rebrand assault as "tough love" solely because the victim is powerless.

the single motherhood rate went from 20% to 70% in the last half-century.

I mean, why not add some completely fabricated statistics to top it off, sure! (21% of children in the United States live in single-mother households, not 70%). But why let basic demographic facts get in the way of a misogynistic rant designed to distract from the fact that you think hitting children makes you a tough guy?

The only lesson you're teaching is "be violent".

So you're saying your family is made up of liars? Neato.

You get hard for corporal punishment. Hard man. Soft brain.

You, sir, are mentally incompetent.

It broke specifically because it was overloaded, much like your pathetic little brain. Please seek help.

Capitalism thrives on hypocrisy, it's just the thing to keep the masses of idiots stupiding along at their jobs so the wealthy can buy their 47th yacht. Texas literally has a vested interest in non-solar power (specifically oil and gas — they produce around a quarter of our natgas) so they need to keep advertising it so they can sell it, but they're not actually stupid so they also are doing solar and wind. Solar's easier to deploy without hassles because bumpkins can't see it from their pickups, plus Texas is prime sun country, so it's more solar than wind.

Of course, we have a name for people who are not stupid, and sell people a product which they know will destroy them because it allows them to live a life close to kings, and it is evil.

You forgot about derivative works.

The definition is pretty fuzzy and varies for different types of media but the general standard is recognizable elements were reproduced.

No court has yet quite taken that up that I know of but you don't need to reproduce a work in full to have a derivative work which could be a copyright violation.

You don't need any of that shit to graduate high school any more. I got an associates with just business math.

This is why you believe this bullshit. You're abdicating your thinking to the machine and then sucking down what it gives you.