Say "it turns out it's hard to automate things people regard as simple. People carry an enormous amount of context and consult it without ever being aware of doing so. Telling a computer how to do what you do as naturally as walking means identifying every neuron, every muscle, getting every detail right, or the whole thing falls over. Once the work's done, once it's understood and specified to the level of detail computers need to operate properly, there's immense value in that,and then somebody wants it to hop or skip or pirouette. The problem is, the technical details bore most people right out of their skulls, and a lot of the tasks better suited for computers than people are _already_ boring. But for people who like code, just like people who like math or politics or whatever, the details of how all the parts are put together, how they all operate together, it's just fascinating. Even some of the tiny little parts are fascinating all on their own when getting the most out of them starts to matter."

And maybe more importantly, if it disagrees with the humans, can we figure out why? This is a problem with a lot of machine learning applications, but there aren't many where understanding the decision-making process is more vital than it is here.

He says. On the internet.

I think you've got monopoly-busting confused with something else.

And that's the extent of their opposition?

I think the standard metaphorical creature for "ignorant and braying noise in ways that make intelligent conversation difficult" is not mythical.

There are. One of them is a greedy and abusive minority sucking in the ignorant with lies.

Network bandwidth isn't open access.

That's not a challenge for anyone. Congestion avoidance is a solved problem, an automated algorithm, _the_ automated algorithm that picks what to send or drop next. If "excessive users" are interfering with anybody else, causing that interference was an explicit choice by the ISP.

This is the confusion the FBI et al. are capitalizing on. A physical lock that's more expensive to break than the value of what it's protecting would be absurd.

So long as you confine yourself to copying the index of the book and taking out the page numbers and every entry that isn't a proper noun, go for it.

You don't have to use it that way.

But only the foreign ones.

I really don't think his value to humanity consists of him spending his airtime talking about what self-entitled theocrats and oligarchs and warlords and just plain kleptocrats want him to talk about. I think his value to humanity consists of him spending his airtime talking about what they _don't_ want him to talk about, because he's one of the few people who actually know that stuff first-hand.

All bases are base 10 in their own eyes. Special enough for you?

They're not. Those proofs permit the companies to do what would otherwise be illegal. They don't require the companies to break their product line.