Well, to make a not so subtle point, there WAS an armed revolt, but it was in defense of all this, not in opposition.

It's none of those things. It's just seething vitriol. Republican voters, who are predominantly poor, sick, and uneducated, have been told for years that they're poor and uneducated because of the only people on this earth who don't want them to be poor, sick, and uneducated. The GOP can't succeed without a huge tribe of victim voters who can only be trained in base instinctive behaviors like hate and violence.

If you're going to repost the entire lede of the story, at least also share the counterpoint: "Gary Marcus, a reliable critic of the field, called the release amazing but vastly oversold. Some specialists expect that once the dust settles, a few of the ten will look genuinely surprising and the rest will be classified as reachable problems that nobody had gotten around to attacking."

And ironically, or maybe unironically, this story reads like it was AI-generated. Phrases like these:

"Three objections are worth taking seriously, and the honest reading concedes all three."

"Grant every objection and the structural point survives intact. Whether the ten were cherry-picked or not, the certificates still verify. A curated result that mechanically checks is a different object from a curated result that does not."

"The cost of producing a hard answer just fell to almost nothing, and the constraint moved to proving the answer is right."

Most humans don't write quite like that.

I suppose if one were to ignore 250 years of constitutional law

What "Constitutional Law"? Citation needed. Needed so badly, I'll do it for you:

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. The Court held that what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, laying the foundation for warrantless visual observation of people in public places.

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

Held that police may use a beeper (tracking device) to follow a vehicle on public roads without a warrant. A person traveling on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements from one place to another; visual surveillance (or technological aids that merely enhance it) is not a Fourth Amendment “search.”

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

While ruling that prolonged GPS tracking of a vehicle constitutes a search requiring a warrant (because of the physical attachment of the device), the Court reaffirmed that short-term visual or technological monitoring of movements on public roads remains permissible without a warrant under the principles of Knotts.

Oh, wait...

people shouldn't have a government that follows their every step by using AI and networked devices

Maybe, we should not, but there is not law prohibiting government to do this.

AI may be new, but the problem is not, and courts have repeatedly reaffirmed government's right to surveil us in public without any warrants (list courtesy of Grok). The second item — known as Knotts — is particularly telling...

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. The Court held that what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, laying the foundation for warrantless visual observation of people in public places.

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

Held that police may use a beeper (tracking device) to follow a vehicle on public roads without a warrant. A person traveling on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements from one place to another; visual surveillance (or technological aids that merely enhance it) is not a Fourth Amendment “search.”

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

While ruling that prolonged GPS tracking of a vehicle constitutes a search requiring a warrant (because of the physical attachment of the device), the Court reaffirmed that short-term visual or technological monitoring of movements on public roads remains permissible without a warrant under the principles of Knotts.

Besides, how can the 4th Amendment include cameras, which didn't exist in the 18th century, if the 2nd doesn't protect "assault rifles"? :-)

Usage of Flock cameras is almost certainly a violation of the 4th amendment.

It most definitely is not. The actual text of the Amendment, for your benefit:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

The camera is not peering into your pockets, or windows. It is only looking at what's publicly visible...

Very simple, obvious, common-sense argument: whatever a human policeman can see and memorize, an electronic device can record too.

Governments don't have the right to do mass general surveillance

Huh?! Why not? Let's focus on American (Federal) government in particular — what is prohibiting them from conducting "mass general surveillance"?

Not saying, it is good — or bad — just want you to substantiate your claim, that it is somehow illegal...

Yes, it was theft.

I asked about genocide, not theft...

we signed treaties with the natives and then BROKE LITERALLY EVERY ONE OF THEM

What treaties?.. But do enumerate the genocides first, before you go rambling further off topic...

You name it, our government has done it, including coups, assassinations, coups, genocides, false flags, drug trafficking, human trafficking, willfully selling munitions to international criminals

Genocides — plural — is the worst accusation here, and warrants a follow-up question. What genocides (two or more) has our government committed — within our lifetimes?

They're going to make an example out of him and give him the maximum.

"They" who? A jury of his peers?

I doubt it...

Plus it never even occurred to the police or the prosecutors that they may have made a mistake. In their thinking that is not even possible.

never enter the US. Works great

Works great for all of us indeed.

Do be sure to take your phone to China with you, though. It just might heal your delusions about "multipolar world" and all that.

So any interaction with the Brownshirts of Fatherland Security?

That was true even before Germany's surplus WWI uniforms were distributed to adherents of a certain party...

better to not have that data on you when you cross certain borders

How about any border? Even more generally, at any situation, when the ordinary rights do not obtain...

I wonder, what the long term consequences of obtaining — and using — this skill are, if any... Does it make one smarter? Or faster? Does it reduce — or increase — the risk of developing Altzheimer? Does it affect personality in any way?

Also, can the skill be lost — if not regularly used — or is it more like bicycle-riding?