As I wrote in 2001, with a plea digital public works -- like self-driving AI software funded by government dollars which I had seen in action at CMU around 1985 -- always stay open and free if funded by government or charitable dollars:
https://pdfernhout.net/on-fund...
        "As a software developer and content creator, I find it continually frustrating to visit web sites of projects funded directly or indirectly by government agencies or foundations, only to discover I can't easily improve on those projects because of licensing restrictions both on redistribution and on making derived works of their content and software. ...
        The non-profit collaborative communications ecosystem is polluted with endless anti-collaborative restrictive terms of use for charitably funded materials (both content and software) produced by a wide range of public organizations. These restrictions are in effect acting like "no trespassing -- toxic waste -- keep out -- this means you" signs by prohibiting making new derived works directly from pre-existing digital public works. The justification is usually that tight control of copyright and restricting communications of those materials will produce income for the non-profit, and while this is sometimes true, the cost to society in the internet age in terms of limiting cooperation is high, and in fact, I would argue, too high. ..."

Sad that is still an issue a quarter century later -- especially in the case of AI.

AI could bring so much abundance for all -- or it could be used to enforce artificial scarcity or all (or worse). Making any sort of AI in a for-profit competitive fashion is much more likely to produce the latter than the former, as implied in my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

Building AI in an open and socially-responsible as-safe-as-feasible way was essentially the whole original core thesis of the founding of OpenAI (as reflected in the name).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
        "OpenAI stated that "it's hard to fathom how much human-level AI could benefit society", and that it is equally difficult to comprehend "how much it could damage society if built or used incorrectly" ... In its founding charter, OpenAI defined its mission as ensuring that artificial general intelligence (AGI) "benefits all of humanity", and stated an intention to collaborate openly with other institutions by making certain patents and research publicly available, but later restricted access to its most capable models, citing competitive and safety concerns. ... OpenAI's potential and mission drew these researchers to the firm; a Google employee said he was willing to leave Google for OpenAI "partly because of the very strong group of people and, to a very large extent, because of its mission." ..."

For some reason, the Control Panel is still here after 10+ years of trying to get the Settings app to be feature complete

Because Control Panel is the best and fastest way to find what you want. It is clearly laid out, descriptive, and allows you to get things done.

Whereas, Settings is configured as if someone threw a ball of yarn into a box and let a cat play with it, then the cat threw up from playing so hard.

No, it's fine. Texas says so.

We had a vote on that. Your proposal lost. Deal with it.

Duke 3D's soundtrack was not exclusively the work of Bobby Prince; Lee Jackson, Apogee's go-to music guy, also did some of the tracks, including the title theme, Grabbag.

Prince used not only his MIDI skills but also his experience as a lawyer to ensure his 'inspired' derivatives were as close as legally possible to the originals. The relationship between individual tracks is often very clear and sometimes even hinted in the metadata of the source files.

"Jailbreak" definitely implied something illicit in 1974 when AC/DC performed the song, but in 2026?! No. Jailbreaking is totally legit 99 times out of a hundred.

Jails were once respected because they were a product of society's consensus. When DRM appeared, jails became anyone's restrictions, with no societal inputs and no claims to legitimacy.

If you break out of the county jail or federal prison, that's a whole other thing than breaking out of your neighbor's sex dungeon. And almost all the time we talk about "jailbreaking" now, it's analogous to the neighbor's sex dungeon. Nearly everyone would agree it's legit to leave, and any illicitness is on the part of the captor!

[I]t's important to note that jailbreaking a Kindle might violate Amazon's terms of service.

Isn't the context here, that there is no service? I suspect that whatever terms the two parties came to agree upon, Amazon is the one who has initiated the violation of those terms, by ceasing to provide service!

Slashdot is a website for the elderly.

You wrote: "In my experience, most of the time, when a business says "we can't find qualified applicants" what they really mean is "we can't find *perfect* employees to hire, or the truth is we just don't want to hire at all right now"."

Two other interconnected things most such businesses may mean but are not saying out loud (related to your "perfect" point) are:
* we are not willing to pay enough for experienced talent (especially if we might be able to bring in H-1Bs or alternatively American W2s via big consulting shops who get paid at employee wages given IRS concerns due to tax laws lobbied for by big consulting shops to make it financially dangerous to hire individuals who are sole proprietors as 1099 consultants at double or triple employee wages), and
* we are not willing to pay to train someone who has the capacity to learn and grow over a year or two (especially because we are afraid they will then move on elsewhere for a pay bump we won't give them if they stay).

There's also often a subtext of age discrimination like with the computer field, and also a sense that all programmers are essentially interchangeable.

Companies may have good reasons for these reservations in given the changing nature of the competitive economic landscape and employees also no longer typically working at one big company for life as was more common in the 1960s. But, given a difference sense of company loyalty back then (going both ways), there was an expectation for significant on-the-job training in the 1950s and 1960s in the USA, where companies like GE in NY would even pay for employees to get college educations. Or IBM with its in-house training for technical managers especially.

Or for HP in Silicon Valley who also trained people:
https://livefromsiliconvalley....
"When people ask why Hewlett-Packard still matters, the answer is straightforward: HP established operating patterns that shaped generations of Valley companies. The "HP Way" emphasized respect for engineers, decentralized decision-making, close customer contact, and disciplined experimentation. Those principles influenced firms from Intel to Apple and continue to appear in management playbooks today. HP also trained talent that later founded or led other major businesses, making it both a company and an institutional source of Silicon Valley leadership."

I am obviously generalizing a lot here since some companies provide some degree of training, but in general, how many large companies does the USA still have that follow anything close to the "HP Way"? And especially how many will offer on-the-job training to anyone over 40-50?

Of course, there is a more local-to-the-USA part of the jobs story too (even as it is not as big a global issue as the one in my sig):
"Americans Don't Realize The Empire Is Already Falling Apart"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
        "Spain. Britain. The Soviet Union. Three of history's most powerful empires all destroyed by the same 7-stage pattern. Military overextension. Currency debasement. Debt spiral. Loss of productive capacity. Social decay. Reserve currency collapse. Sudden fall.
        Historians and economists have identified this sequence repeating across centuries with alarming consistency. And in 2026, the United States shows every measurable sign of Stage 5 right now.
        In this video, we break down:
        * Why America's $36 trillion debt is past the point of no return;
        * How the U.S. lost its productive economy and replaced it with a financial casino;
        * Why the dollar's share of global reserves has dropped 12 points since 2000;
        * The consumer sentiment reading lower than ANY war, recession, or pandemic in 75 years;
        * What China, BRICS, and the Global South are quietly doing about it;
        This isn't politics. This isn't conspiracy. This is arithmetic."

Personally I don't feel the USA debt is "past the point of no return" theoretically even if it might be politically/practically. Restore tax rates from the 1970s, remove the cap on Social Security earnings tax but cap payouts at current max levels, and add a 0.1% tax on every stock sale -- and the US debt will be quickly reduced (plus there will be plenty of money for medicare-for-all, keeping Social Security solvent, and reinvesting in physical and social infrastructure). A day of legislative voting in Congress plus a quick signature by the president, and the USA would be on a sound economic footing again.

Whether there is the political will to do all that is a different story. It would require the GOP to move past the "Two Santa Clauses tactic" for winning elections:
https://www.salon.com/2018/02/...
"In fact, Republican strategist Jude Wanniski's 1974 "Two Santa Clauses Theory" has been the main reason why the GOP has succeeded in producing our last two Republican presidents, Bush and Trump (despite losing the popular vote both times). It's also why Reagan's economy seemed to be "good."
        Here's how it works, laid it out in simple summary:
        First, when Republicans control the federal government, and particularly the White House, spend money like a drunken sailor and run up the US debt as far and as fast as possible. This produces three results - it stimulates the economy thus making people think that the GOP can produce a good economy, it raises the debt dramatically, and it makes people think that Republicans are the "tax-cut Santa Claus."
        Second, when a Democrat is in the White House, scream about the national debt as loudly and frantically as possible, freaking out about how "our children will have to pay for it!" and "we have to cut spending to solve the crisis!" This will force the Democrats in power to cut their own social safety net programs, thus shooting their welfare-of-the-American-people Santa Claus. ..."

Like with modern monetary theory, governments who have a dominant world currently like the USA essentially print whatever money they want to pay their bills -- and they then can use taxes to manage the size of the available money supply to manage inflation. It's so weird that people (the Fed especially) act like the only way to reduce inflation is to increase interest rates to slow (damage) the economy when the other obvious solution is to raise taxes to take money out of circulation. Why don't we ever hear the Fed saying, "we only have to raise interest rates because politicians refuse to raise taxes"?
https://www.investopedia.com/m...

Fixing the US debt issue with higher taxes (allowing interest rates to stay lower) might not fix all the jobs issues though as AI and robotics continue to accelerate exponentially. More ideas on dealing with that collected by me in 2010:
https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-...
        "This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."

As with my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

Well, that would be a form of Justice.

Offer me a local or rented-tenant isolated clone of ChatGPT that is under my control, then we'll talk.

Oh, and my agents, be they human or computer, should only get "read" access, which means my financial institutions will need to provide a credentials that only have read access.

Bottom line:
* I don't trust AI not to try to make changes to my account, but I do trust my financial institutions to not allow a "read-only" login to make changes.
* I don't trust ChatGPT or the other big-name AI companies with my data any more than I have to. Maybe someday, when there are laws in place that have been tested in court, but until then, not so much.

That way I can guarantee that it won't be "connected."

I'd prefer if it applied to people who drive below the speed limit, brake at green lights, or who brake going down small hills. That, and those who drive Subarus or Buicks.