...My installation of minidlna still works fine, is Free Software, and doesn't phone home or exfiltrate my metadata.

Do you often use VeraCrypt on a company-managed device? I'm sure if you do then it's with the knowledge and consent of your IT department and they'll be responsible for managing any consequences of the VeraCrypt issue according to their official policy as well.

It might be a hallucination, or it might be a real problem. And there are other possibilities. (E.g. earlier it was suggested that MS noticed a bad bug *somehow* and the government didn't want the bug to be fixed.)

If you want to be fair, it's been headed that way ever since the 1860's. And prior to that the individual states were headed that way.

People in power like to make their jobs easier.

"Security by obscurity" doesn't work by itself. It's a necessary component of every security policy, however. You can't just pick one. (It's called "defense in depth", but that's not really a good metaphor.)

I'd want:
- Trivially replaceable battery. This means no glue, and ideally means a standardized battery approach to maximize chances of buying a replacement one down the line.
- Putting ports on a separate board than the CPU and ram and such. Physical damage comes to ports, especially charging ports. Having this delegated off board minimizes risk of having to replace something expensive.
- Replacable keyboard and screen. Again, at high risk of damage and should be replaceable
- Removable storage. If your mainboard does fail, smoothest if you can move your SSD over to the replacement main board.
- Commitment to consistent form factor. If 5 years down the line it breaks, I can accept if I can't get *exactly* the same board anymore, but it would be nice if I could just get a new generation board and replace it without letting perfectly adequate screen, keyboard, case go to waste.

So mostly Framework, Lenovo recently did a think with a Thinkpad also exhibiting most of these, except no indication of generation to generation consistency in parts.

On laptops like the ideapads, yes.

I have not seen a ThinkPad where they did this with the keyboard. The commenter was specifically talking about Thinkpad.

Note that this report might be based on perusing websites more than hands on evaluation.

That said, "Lenovo" laptops include the non-thinkpads, which tend to be *terrible* for repair-ability. For example, in many cases they don't consider the keyboard to be a part worthy of keeping replaceable without replacing half of the laptop, despite it being one of the most likely things for a user to break. You can get third-party parts that is just the keyboard, but you have to destroy a lot of plastic welds to even try, and there was never a design to put it really back together after you did that.

The Thinkpads tend to do pretty well, though increasingly the cpu and memory are "just part of the board now", but honestly that's just the direction of that industry in general. We are pushing physics, it's harder for us to do modular RAM at the speeds we want to interact with the RAM, LPCAMM is a thing, but even then you just have a single LPCAMM and it's less about 'repair' and more about being able to have different memory amounts by swapping the module out.

Couldn't find actual details on *which* models they looked at.

If you look at the non-ThinkPad Lenovo laptops... They are complete shit for repairability.

The ThinkPads on the other hand tend to be very very good.

But other issues make me wonder about their competency in writing the report. Notably they give Lenovo a "lobbying penalty" for being a member of a group that fights right to repair but gives Motorola a pass for not being in those groups.... Lenovo and Motorola are the same company, and they don't seem to realize that.

Still, Slashdot doesn't have to play along with their weasel wording. For example, "ergonomic collars that deliver an electric pulse" - just say "shock collar". Don't help them whitewash what they're talking about.

It's not out of date, it's a simplification.

They don't innately understand their capabilities, but information about it's own capabilities may be fed explicitly into it by other means, just like any other data you want to endeavor to put into the context.

The concept of asking if it implements a certain behavior and either it's deliberately lying or it's not actually there relies upon a false assumption that of course it has innate knowledge of it's own implementation without any "help".

The core relevant issue is that the LLMs will generate an answer based on no data. Instead of "Information on that one way or the other is not available to the model" it sees the answer most consistent with the narrative to be "Those behaviors do not exist". LLMs tend to generate output that implies confidence regardless of whether there should be confidence or not. The workaround has been to try to do everything possible to make sure there is actual data in the context window and hope it just doesn't come up that much, but this is only so possible. Some coding has the opportunity to use test cases to add "the output given failed to work" automatically to the narrative to drive iteration and maybe get further.

But you've got to do both. Doubting oneself is "critical thinking". Doubting other sources of authority is "independent thinking".

The thing is, nobody has enough expertise to be an independent thinker in every area. So you essentially MUST delegate your ideas in some areas (variable between people) to external authorities. At which point what you "believe" depends on which authorities you choose.

A related question is "how firm is that belief?". This also tends to vary wildly with little apparent (to me) reason behind it. This is one feature that *can* be related to IQ, but isn't always.

If you dig deeper, you'll find that AMD originally reverse engineered the *8080*, not the 8086. The two companies had entered into a cross-licensing agreement by 1976. Intel agreed to let AMD second-source the 8086 in order to secure the PC deal with IBM, who insisted on having a second source vendor.

There would have been no Intel success story without AMD to back them up.

(That actually would have been for the best. IBM would probably have selected an non-segmented CPU from somebody else instead of Intel's kludge.)

It's not just widespread, it's universal. What varies from person to person is the domain that they apply thinking to, and how they validate the authority they choose to trust.

Nobody is an "independent thinker" on every topic. Wherever one is an expert, one tends to be an "independent thinker" in that domain. Where you don't feel knowledgeable, you tend to accept an authoritative source...possibly after doing some amount of checking to see whether others think it reliable.