You didn't seem to understand that you are making my point. The claim from the FCC is a variation of "won't somebody think of the children" to wit "won't somebody think of the scam victims", but of course, as we both agree, this isn't about that at all. That is the whole point. Do they to keep up.

If you use a phone from another country you don't need a burner phone, because you don't need to conform with FCC laws, so this law doesn't stop scammers from other countries from scamming people in the USA. Herp Derp

Are claiming that you can't place calls from outside the USA to the USA? Are you claiming that there is no such thing as international roaming? I hope that muddies things back up for you.

The US constitution wasn't ratified until 1788 so Adams and Washington would have been approximately 52 and 56, at a time when the average life expectancy was much lower. Most people would consider them to be old even by today's standards. I am less than a 5 years older than they were at the time, and I can 100% confirm that I am an old man.

Bullshit. Your post exposes your complete lack of understanding of this issue. Even if you argue that there is a conspiracy and disabling location services and setting your google account Web & App activity and Timeline to off doesn't really work, these things track a *phone*, not a person. It is possible to simply not tie your phone to any google account, or to get a regular non-smartphone device. You can also create an anonymous google account which gets tied to the phone number, not your ID *until* this requirement is enacted. Once that happens it will be impossible to create an anonymous google account that the government cannot tie back to a citizen. Same with FB and similar, as well as any other website or app that requires/uses a verified phone number. If you have any self-respect at all you will apologize to every person you ever misinformed about this issue. You ignorance is dangerous.

While we can't pinpoint the exact moment it occurred, we do know that the systematic under-education and miseducation of the populace resulted in it eventually being vaporized.

So if a car salesman tells me that a Ford Probe can travel through time then I can say that "one of the pitches" made about cars is that they can fly? Off you go now ...

To others yes, but not to you. It can be impossible to prove to an idiot that they are an idiot, but you do realize others read Slashdot, right? Or are you an even bigger idiot than it at first appears?

Zig isn't ready for AI because AI isn't ready for Zig. There is a bootstrapping problem. Quality training data is limited because it is new, and many humans don't yet have the experience needed to be good at it.

Since Zig is newer, developers are often learning the language alongside the AI. A novice developer might accept an AI's bad allocator usage or improper async handling simply because they lack the expertise to audit it properly. This creates a situation that causes AI to be less effective when using it for Zig development when compared to C and C++ development efficacy, even if they review proposed changes prior to submission of the pull request. Citing Zigs experience as indicative of a global condemnation of AIs usefulness in a software development context represents a complete failure to look at the big picture and place the facts in context. One can use an AI to explore this further.

After thinking a bit about this I asked Gemini (free version) "I am trying to determine if AI generated zig code would likely be of poorer quality than C code due to a few factors. One is that zig is new so many developers may not be very skilled with it, and another is that there is limited training data as compared to C or C++." It had a lot of insightful commentary on my point. In fact there was far too much to copy and paste here, but anyone interested can do so if they want to explore my point (made primarily in the first paragraph of this post) further.

An example that a lot of people don't understand how to use AI properly is not an example of proof that AI is useless or flawed and produces trash and reduces efficiency. As with any tool, when used properly by skilled people it is a good thing, and when misused by people with no training in its use it can be counterproductive and sometimes destructive.

Assuming a correlation between Slashdot UID and the users age and experience calls into question your software development skills.

Nobody knows that because you just pulled that claim out of your ass.

Didn't cry little girl. You could still probably learn to knit or something. I truly believe that you can find some kind of discipline to learn in which you may be competent. Technology just isn't your thing, that's all.

You have to be phenomenally incompetent to suggest that only systems that trust their users are safe. Why have a trust model at all. You constantly amaze me with your incompetence, and you have already set the bar ridiculously low.

I agree, after all, you are a human and your attitude is quite dangerous.