Yes and no. Greed is very much part of nature in general, not just human nature. Usually it's not greed to pure excess, but greed beyond the perceived need. By that, I mean the line between self-interest and greed can be fuzzy and not everyone is going to agree on where they/others fall. You can want more than you can ever realistically use, but within a range that could also provide for friends and family, for example. Depending on the definition, or who you ask, that could be greedy.

The level of greed some/many humans display is very much taught, however.

I already explained why that isn't necessarily true. Computer do what they're told, not what you think they're told. Intent matters for charges.

That hasn't been determined yet. I don't doubt it, but it hasn't been determined.

The story is quite literally about the police investigating whether it was programmed or under direct control. It's in the headline.

If you note, they clearly stated that the girl was groped. They didn't hedge on that statement. Rightwingnutjob's comment implies there was some controversy over whether it's assault, because robot. That just isn't the case. The issue at hand, as the story said, is how the robot was being controlled. That would be relevant for how to charge, but doesn't change what happened to the girl.

I should contextualize my first sentence. I meant that to say the end result for the victim is that she was assaulted. I wasn't explicitly saying the law will find them guilty of assault. If it was programmed, there is room for this to be dropped to a lesser charge.

I don't think they're is any question whether it's considered assault. I think the question is more a matter of how/why it happened the way it did. If the robot was under direct control, it most likely did exactly what they wanted it to do. If it was programmed, there is room for things to have not turned out the way it was intended. I don't think it would necessarily absolve guilt, but it would matter for the charges and sentencing.

Yeah, my brain doesn't always work every time.

I am not inherently against kernel-level anti-cheat in Linux. I think it's better for those users to be able to switch to Linux, for them and for adoption. I don't want it myself, but to each their own. Just as long as if/when those agreements happen, they don't just slap them into the default. It needs to be a separate distro, or a proper opt-in process.

I don't know if I would vouch for there capabilities or not. That said, if they aren't good devs the quality of their own code would be circumspect as well.

The argument could be made that they're just targeting the largest companies, not necessarily all of the companies abusing the system. I'm not trying to defend Microsoft or anything, but I think it's reasonable for people to assume there is some form of favoritism or desired payoff to restore access. That said, it could also have been done for a number of other self-serving reasons, or even because they actually thought it would be good for the job market.

I was thinking more for companies.

It's outside my wheelhouse, so there are likely other valid reasons, but it would remove the need for a Docker license.

There is a large enough percentage of people hooking up from games that I would venture the odds are non-zero. While I think the odds are definitely better in real life, especially given that physical proximity increases the odds, not everyone is going to get lucky in real life either.

I'm not endorsing paid digital cosmetics, there is a lot going on here to hate, but I do want to point out that paid cosmetics(generalization) are a part of reality too. The clothes we wear, makeup, cars, and so on. Much of that is also transient in nature.

The makeup people wear in real life is fundamentally no different that the paid cosmetics in a game or on social media. You're augmenting your visual appearance to change how other view you. Arguably, the digital cosmetics are a better value as they can last longer.

There is something to be said about online social interaction vs offline interaction, but that is a separate argument than the validity of digital cosmetics. My point is only that, as people, we're more than willing to denounce the opinions and hobbies of others while ignoring how we're guilty of the same thing in other ways.

Again, just because it's common doesn't mean they aren't assholes for doing it. They're intentionally gaming the system for their own benefit. They did not need to sign an agreement with a company that would add the unit to the public network. That was a choice that they made, knowing they wouldn't want it to actually be public. I get that it can be normalized, but it doesn't absolve them.

They partnered with a company that puts them in their public network. If they didn't want to be part of that public network, they should have gone elsewhere. They knew what they were getting into when they signed on.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.