So basically, debates allow everyone to get to a better answer. What a novel idea.

I understand it's very important for some people, but personally I'm not someone who values art in a video game. In fact, I think art often hinders gameplay. So I'll take without hesitation a good game with mediocre art over a mediocre game with good art. If that art is done by an AI, I don't care at all.

I will never trust a claim of privacy, security and freedom from people who make political activism (that has nothing to do with FOSS) the first value of the project. If the leader of a project thinks it's OK to insult, censor, and ban people from participating in the project based on their personal political views (that again has nothing to do with FOSS), then what's stopping that project leader from using the browser to do other nefarious things to the users?

And of course I meant to say 'the phone I want', not 'the phone I don't want'

I'd be willing to replace my 4 year-old iPhone 13 mini if Apple made a new phone that was about that size (5.4 inches diagonal). Unfortunately their smallest sized iPhone is now nearly an inch larger (6.3 inches)

I'm 56. My code is of higher quality than when I was 25, but I've lost a lot of stamina and I now need more breaks when coding. So while there is possibly some truth in the statement that senior developers are better to catch and correct AI's mistakes, I guess another factor is that some senior developers have become slower than junior developers to create code.

It was Aliens. They were out there raking the sand making it all smooth.

This seems likely to me. If the next couple of test flights go well and orbital refueling is demonstrated by early next year, there's no reason SpaceX won't try sending a Starship to lunar orbit (if not the lunar surface) sometime in 2025. This has been the plan under the Starship HLS component of the Artemis program for some time now.

When you feed it a giant cesspool of invalidated data (The internet) you should not expect a single response to be accurate. none of these AI's are fed a carefully curated data set.

But companies are expecting to replace all their programmers with AI.... What could possibly go wrong?

No, I'm also talking about the ISA. Part of this ISA was designed in the US, therefore the US government considers this is US technology. Supposing the US government decides to impose export restrictions on the RISC-V ISA, if a company in Malaysia makes its own processor that uses the RISC-V ISA and then sell this processor to a country where there is no export authorization, then the US government will sanction that Malaysian company for exporting "US technology".

It goes even beyond this. If that Malaysian company designs its own processor with its own ISA, but uses American software under export restriction to make the design, then the US government can sanction the Malaysian company under the pretense that this processor was made using "US technology".

This is how the US government can forbid ASML or TSMC from selling their own products to China, even if both companies are quite unhappy with this (and losing a lot of money).

It can control it using sanctions.

The US government can declare that any part of RISC-V made in the US must not be used outside of the US by anyone without an export authorization. If a company outside of the US still use it without authorization, the US government will impose sanctions on it, mainly by limiting or forbidding its ability to make international transactions.

China, Russia and many other countries are now working to implement a real alternative to Swift and ultimately to the US dollar, but it will take several years for that to happen. Until then, the US government controls the world.

Meh. It's not used anymore now.

>> Wasn't Amazon AWS not long ago banning Parler off their cloud when they decided they didn't like Parler's political leanings?

>Parler violated Amazon's terms of service against hateful content.

Theyâ(TM)re the same picture.

Here is the actual text of claim 1 from the US patent. The other claims are dependent (i.e., are narrower in scope). The patent examiner found that the claim here is for something novel and non-obvious, which may be true. It may also be true however, that what is claimed is not what CSP actually does, in which case CSP would not be infringing this claim.

A method of preventing unwanted code execution in a client/server computing environment executing a client-side script by an internet browser, said internet browser comprising functions, objects and properties, and their instances, wherein the client/server computing environment comprises at least one server-side resource in network communications with the internet browser, wherein the internet browser receives the script from at least one script source and executes the script, wherein the at least one script source includes any one or combination of: messages received from the at least one server-side resource in response to requests made by the internet browser; the script entered by a user of the internet browser through a debug console; the script entered by a user through the internet browser address bar; the script contained in third party browser add-ons attached to the browser; and the script retrieved from a local storage device, the method comprising:
        determining safe and at risk or restricted portions of the internet browser, wherein at least one of the portions of the internet browser comprises instances of the functions, objects and properties;
        determining at least one of the at least one server-side resource to be a trusted resource;
        determining trusted and untrusted portions of the script wherein trusted script includes script contained in messages received from the trusted resource using the network communications, and untrusted script refers to script received from untrusted script sources;
        receiving, by the internet browser, from the trusted resource at least one message using the network communications containing one or more passwords; and
        in response to the receiving, preventing, by the internet browser, unwanted code execution by:
                re-writing said at risk portions of the internet browser to require presentation of the one or more passwords to the internet browser in order for the internet browser or any script to execute said at risk portions, wherein re-writing is executed during runtime of the internet browser and includes altering the internet browser by a rewriter program executing in the internet browser,
        wherein the trusted resource includes the one or more passwords within each messages containing trusted script sent to the internet browser using the network communications subsequent to the at least one message, in order that the trusted script contained in the each messages is permitted to execute said at risk portions of the internet browser.