The same can be said of every technology. The more "experienced" people are the most sceptical to any possibility of change. Those people inexperienced who have used something on the other hand see how significant of a change can be.

The question is, do those "experienced" (the makers in the trenches in your case) adapt and learn the tools using them to support their working positions, or do they ignore them, boo them, pretend they don't exist, and then get made redundant by someone else who comes along and uses a fancy tool to do better?

I'm not saying AI is good, I'm saying this is a general development of all new technology. Those workers would do well to lean those AI tools. It may become as indispensable as the ability to type in many fields.

The only people unemployable are those who are booing the thing they never bothered to learn. Every technological change in history has caused job losses someplace and job gains somewhere else. The question is, will these people have their jobs replaced by someone else who understands the tools and uses them to make these people obsolete, or should they learn those tools themselves to make them more valuable.

There's a difference between interacting with a crowd and giving a speech. She's not there to promote a 2 way interaction, to teach people and engage in discourse. This isn't a political debate, it's a commencement speech.

When giving a predefined speech to someone who you don't have any stake in appealing to you give your speech and move on. Which is precisely what she did. Adapting means causing more problems as well as potentially running over an allotted slot affecting other proceedings.

So? Content is critical, everything is just plausible deniability. If you're concerned about someone knowing that you texted someone to the point where you're afraid even if they have no idea of the content of the message then get a burner phone.

Why? Drivers are drivers. Ultimately they are required to run with the kinds of privileges where bugs will allow memory access, arbitrary code execution, and privilege escalation. You can't move things to the userland without also breaking the functionality, and if you provide enough access to retain the functionality then bugs become just as severe.

I guarantee you due to vendor licensing agreement the version of Windows it was running when it was brand new was also well out of date without the current patches applied. In reality I want that machine to sit on a closed network without easy access to the internet.

No I don't and it most certainly wasn't running on an up to date kernel even when it was new and under maintenance. I want that MRI machine on a protected network and locked down to not have internet facing functions.

But interesting choice of shock example. I actually don't really care if that MRI machine will get compromised. It's not like the PC gives the operator the option to kill or otherwise maim the person in it, nor does the machine make a medical decision based on the materials that it comes from.

who fed AI all the Terminator movies? Do you want to get wiped out? Because that's how you get wiped out. Probably starting with the guy who kicked the Boston Dynamics dog.

You're literally describing the process of life itself. You were no better back when you were pooping your pants and sticking everything into your mouth while making random noises to try and communicate.

It's worse than that. It's not just not a prestige badge, it's also a shit car. The Mach-e is probably one of the worst EVs I've driven. It handles poorly, has some WTF level design decisions internally, has a range estimator that seems to have ADHD and not reflect remotely the vehicles actual electrical consumption or battery drain, really shit 12V battery management (no management while the car isn't being driven - something other EV makers addressed years ago), and some incredibly dangerously expensive design decisions (a small strike to the underbody of the car in an unlucky spot will kill the cooling system for the battery and be a 5 digit repair cost).

Or maybe Ford just needs better cars. They have competitors in every category they produce EVs in currently outperforming them, including some which are sold as a premium. They just produce really shit cars. If I were in the market for a Mach-e right now it would be on the bottom of the list of cars I'd buy. Having driven them they are SHIT and if I were stuck in the budget for a Mach-e and it were the only SUV on the market in its price category I'd probably pick a different style of car.

But the reality is the market is full of cars being sold for *more* than the Mach-e which are in fact selling well - and that would be my go-to, save a bit more money and buy a Polestar 4 or something.

Irrelevant. My point is that seeing a few cars on the road does not make something a success. Ford's entire EV business is lagging the industry and losing money. Whether it's because they are selling the wrong type of car doesn't change anything.

That's a bit short sighted. While a 37 year old CPU is no longer useful, 10-15 year old hardware is not only perfectly viable but actually widely and actively used. I myself am running a modern up to date Linux on a 14 year old CPU with adequate performance and have zero intention to change it unless something physically breaks in the short term.

There's no reason to depreciate hardware unless a specific feature is absent (maybe things will change if we mandate TPMs - but right now that is optional for every Linux distro)

Hardly. Windows 11 depreciated perfectly viable hardware. On the flip side trying to get a modern Linux distribution running on a K5 would be like a trip to the dentist. Actually you could do both because your system probably won't have finished booting by the time your dentist is done with your root canal ;-)

There's a big difference between depreciating a 8 year old CPU and a 37 year old CPU.

"I just put my models on a usb drive then plug said drive into the printer."

You must have a lot of spare time on your hands.