"Firefox can't be all things to all people. But any of these things can easily be turned off or customized."

As long as it's all things to you.

Right, but there's also capitalism.

"...not that I fly to countries run by dangerous dictators."

Do you fly to the US?

The Constitution has been rendered moot by the Supreme Court. The President, and by extension the executive branch, is immune from law. You have no constitutional rights, only constitutional suggestions that federal law enforcement can ignore (and are instructed to do so). Citizens are now shot in the streets.

'...agents are "authorized to make such search or seizure"...'

How can they be authorized when they are not on US soil? Who authorizes them?

There is an assumption here that the subject lied to federal agents. How is that established? Because some people assumed it on /.?

And why allow your wife to travel at all then? Those "border morons" don't have to let her in.

"It can absolutely be obstruction without a warrant..."

"Can" and "is" are very different and depend on details we have no access to.

"We don't know all the details of the case..."

Including alleged facts you take for granted.

"Supposed to" says who? Are they "supposed to" murder people too? Does it matter if we like the immigration system "we have"? When does crime committed by the government matter to you? Never?

I like how they claim the event occurs "not on US soil" until they say it is, yet they somehow have jurisdiction. How does US law enforcement have power outside US soil?

Agreed, but surely you'd only lie to police if you "needed it", so you must be a criminal right?

"Always thought it was a little funny because he didn't strike me as the kind to need it but who knows."

Hysterical. You'd make a great judge.

LOL you have "use cases".

As to what I'd prefer, neither of these. I'd prefer AI developed to realize its potential rather than be corrupted and destroy civilization. This entire conversation is even relevant to that.

"public good" is a handy catchphrase useful for justifying when billionaires steal. Wasn't DOGE for the "public good"?

"Stallman's position was that the source code to software should be free for everyone to use, learn from, and improve."
That was RMS's public-facing claim. In reality, his position was that source code should be free for HIM to use. As a student, he got upset that he couldn't have source code to a driver he wanted. Regarding software projects he was involved in, RMS loved being a dictator, do it his way or get lost.

"Software encapsulates knowledge, he argued, and no one should lock something so fundamental away."
All sorts of work "encapsulate knowledge", it is the work that is maintained as property, not the knowledge. More Stallman garbage. Also, sounds a whole lot like communism, interesting how open source advocates like to deny that.

"To hide software inside a company was to hide knowledge itself."
A plain lie, but a company's internally generated knowledge is their choice to share.

"What I missed was that software was not just a commercial asset; it was a body of knowledge, and bodies of knowledge grow stronger when they are shared. "
So what? Designing and building cars not only produces cars, but it produces knowledge of how to design and build cars. Yet literally NO ONE argues that this generated knowledge should be public property, or worse, property governed by a Stallman license.

""AI is software, and AI is increasingly closed. The frontier models — the most advanced, cutting-edge AI systems — are closed completely."
Here he exposed his limited understanding of AI. AI is software, deterministic software like every other application ever, that is true. But AI is more than software, it is software that is applied to enormous amounts of data. The portion of AI that is software is not "increasingly closed", however the product of that software, the models and subsequent applications of those models, sometimes is. This guy doesn't understand that a model is more than software, the bulk of the product is training. Training IS NOT software, it is a colossal amount of actual work, your work he wants for free.

"But open source AI does not have to match their scale to be useful."
Nothing prevents open source from training open source models. His position is that corporations should be compelled to "open source" the product of their work. In what industry has there ever been an argument for that other than the "Stallman" industry? The problem here is not the existence of OS models, it's that this guy want YOUR work for free, just like RMS does.

"...that is precisely the kind of public good worth paying for."
The irony of a billionaire who advocates getting other people's work for free using this language. The whole point of open source is not "paying for".

"The government, the private sector, and nonprofits should invest heavily in free and open source AI — the way they once invested in open software: public compute grants for open research, corporate and philanthropic support for universities and nonprofits doing the work, and a simple rule that AI built with public money is open by default."
But the entire lead-in was NOT about this, it was about industry producing closed models. The "private sector" invested in OS because they had a vested interest, what would that interest be with AI? And we do have "nonprofits" investing heavily in AI, how is that working out? An argument can be made that it is in the public interest to socialize AI, and I agree with it. but that runs against the capitalist nature of modern societies, the very foundation of open source, AND against the very system that has made this guy a billionaire.

Now, regarding this "simple rule", why is that NOT the rule for everything publicly funded? Perhaps because it would preclude guys like this getting rich? Sorry, the hypocrisy is off the charts.

"The behavior of these people strikes me more and more as cult-member like."

A most important insight. AI is a cult with billionaire sociopaths as its leaders. The internet has enabled propaganda at a scale considered impossible previously and we are seeing the terrible results.

"...and my shell escaped it tried to execute it. "

You do realize that's the problem, right? AI has access to your command line to autonomously execute commands. No no no.

"LLMs are a very handy tool if used right."

You're not going to acknowledge that the problem is you, you enabled an LLM to do destructive things and then complain when there is destruction. You have the mindset that the LLM should have access to nuclear codes but not use them. "Honest mistake" only means that the LLM publishers didn't maliciously intend for the LLM to start a nuclear holocaust, you're at fault for providing the codes.