What's wrong, pussy? Why you have to hide behind the Anon?

I've seen enough of your posts to know you're an America Hating, Constitution Hating Inbred Cunt, "RigntwingNutJob" you Neonazi Shitbag.

The bigger problem is the number of old devices lying around with a ton of open vulnerabilities. Full disclosure to users of the EOL date, and preferably legislation that manufacturers HAVE to provide security updates for compromise vectors, would be a better set of fixes.

You're an Inbred Dumb Fucking Traitor to America, RightWingTreasonTrashBitchCuntbag.

Not what they did. You're a Lying Constitution Hating Cunt, RightWingTreasonShitbag.

Well, you Klansucking Sisterhumping America Hating ReCUNTlicans already packed the court to try to destroy our Constitutional rights. So I reject your claim that speaking out on matters of public importance as an equal citizen is "corporate sabotage," you neonazi inbred bitchtrash.

Oh, he's a pedophile now? And Biden, who was showering with this 12-year-old daughter is what?

Fuck every last one of you liberal cunts.. You people have lost your fucking grip on reality

They are.. But framing it like that is woefully inadequate. I could describe you as a primate.. Perfect true, but leaves out a whole bunch of detail. They are pattern matching algos. But that's certainly not all they are. There's a whole bunch of emergent behavior in them as there is in you. At your base level, you're just.. chemicals, proteins, lipids, and a bunch of other stuff. Dump 'em all in a vat and you just have a gross cocktail.. Assemble them just right and you have a chemicals that can contemplate their own existence.

AI's probably won't decide to terminate us out of "desire".. But there is a real possibility that flawed humans will introduce flawed logic into a flawed design and we don't know what we'll get out of it.

If you think Fable 5 was just an algorithm, you're naive.

Yeah, retard. Had nothing to do with Anthropic screaming about how Mythos was so dangerous they had to start Project Glasswing to regulate whom could use it, Dario screaming about how much he wanted Government Oversight, and someone jailbreaking Fable.

Fucking liberal retards always.. Always blame everyone else but the actual person...

I don't even understand what died in Britain this time. Surely even before today it was up to the parents to purchase a phone or a tablet or any type of a computer and give it to their children. There is no way for google or anyone to know who is using a phone or a tablet. Today with AI I suppose it is possible to use filters to attempt automatic detection of the person who is livestreaming and allow AI decide if this person is old enough and if not the livestream will then be terminated (or prevented). This will teach children a few things. First of all it will teach them about VPNs, it will also teach them about disguising their identity to the computer, who is looking at them, while they are showing themselves off to the world. They will find new and creative ways to get around these restrictions, they will not 'innocently play', as politicians are promising. There will not be a return to the "good old days". Parents will set up phones and tablets for their offspring because it is easier than to parent and that will be that.

You don't think Anthropic knows who the API key belongs to? Sell your access on the gray market.. You'll soon learn they don't fuck around with National Security Letters. Try it..

Has nothing to do with domestic use. It has to do with use by US Citizens only. Permanent residents (Green Card holders) may not use it. US Citizens overseas may use it. Anthropic has no way of vetting whom is using it at what time.. That's why they are offline.

You are suggesting quite a few things, except you don't like to actually say directly what it is that you want to happen. Here is one thing you said: "Elon Musk should be a wealthy man, no doubt about it but a trillionaire or hell even a $100B is a failure of our economy, our culture, our society or our politics." - 100B is not Musk anymore, it's more than Musk, who I consider to be a con artist.

What you are implying to calling 100B owner a failure of economy and culture and society and politics is that it should be impossible for some reason for a person to accrue enough ownership of private resources to be at that level. It is your inadequacies that are showing here and it is your word play that we are debating. What you are suggesting is oppression and tyranny, nothing less, which is what is required for a person not to be able to accrue any amount of wealth regardless of how it is obtained.

How about this: "I mean, he does. He also still is one person with 24 hours a day, does he actually provide enough productivity to justify tens of millions every day?" - nobody has to justify anything, if they are able to accrue some wealth beyond your imagination does not make it wrong that a person should be able to do so.

To this I have already answered: "Explain this (i am fully anticipating Libertarian-Randian gobbledygook)" - obviously a large amount of accumulated wealth is represented by a business and this business clearly benefits the society much more than the individual who runs it, otherwise the company wouldn't be valuable enough for you to pay attention how wealthy the owner of this company becomes.

This: "Everything you said would equally apply if he was worth $1B as it does $1000B so what does he need the extra 999B? His lifestyle changes 0%. He can still own and run companies." - implies that a person shouldn't be able to have ownership in a company that is growing in value, Musk or anyone else. So if you build a company that becomes so valuable people invest into it enough that its market share, its profits are so large that the value exceeds 100B (on paper, doesn't matter). If you are the single largest owner of the stock in this company your shares go above and beyond 1B.

You are pretending that you are not suggesting confiscation (oppression by the voting majority) yet what else are you suggesting? Be clear, what are your demands and goals? I already see the reasons, jealousy and ideology with a strange belief that a person shouldn't be able to own something of serious value for some reason.

This: "And I would ask just the same what the unhealthy fixation on defending the massive wealth inequality?" - I am FOR wealth inequality, it's the only thing that actually motivates people to move forward with business ideas in the first place. If wealth equality was the goal, nobody would be ruining their lives trying to run a business.

This: " I'll guess if I ask for the alternative you'll point to "communism" and I will just say you are not a serious person with a serious position. Like I said, Randian nonsense." - you are the one bringing up communism and Randian ideas, whatever, you are fixated on the nomenclature.

This: "You say you want to "protect private property" as if what I am suggesting eliminates private property in any fashion." - of course you are. You are suggesting this exact thing, you wouldn't be happy until there wouldn't be "wealth inequality". This requires that people cannot own things cannot operate things as they see fit, cannot go beyond some artificial number that is stuck in your head. You think 1B is plenty and 100B is too much, whatever that is all about. In reality it's all garbage. A person who made a billion dollar company can use the money that he makes to start more companies and eventually go much further than 1B dollars and this bugs the shit out of you because you are on a mission.

I am 100% certain you were the one bringing up communism, I was not. I am against destruction of private property rights, which is what you are suggesting.

what is unsatisfying to you? I am absolutely against majority oppressing a minority via government intervention, a minority in this case is people with more money than most The tyranny of majority leads to redistribution of resources. Communism is not even supposed to have a government. As someone born in the former USSR half a century ago I can point at that system and absolutely refuse it. I can also point at any oppressive system and refuse it. You are proposing an oppressive system, oppression by the force of government backed by the tyranny of majority. I am against it, it leads to destruction of freedoms, economic freedoms being the only ones that matter.