You people have gone insane.

Stop trying to control every atom of existence and every move people make.

You're sick in the head, not visionaries, not thought leaders.

Go plant a garden and get back in touch with the real world.

No, NOT FARMVILLE!

> genuine question - why was this code pushed now

Zuckerberg has aggressively been bribing politicians to enact this at the State level.

Several news stories about it though you have to search for terms like 'lobbying' and 'Meta' as fig leaves.

An exception is the Zeropatch technique where they dynamically update machine code of the OS in memory on the fly for folks who can't tolerate downtime.

It's certainly not common on unix systems.

Or an IoT device running a 2.6 kernel that is never going to be updated. :)

Did Dolby break any countermeasures of Snap's copyrighted code in what would appear to be a significant reverse-engineering effort to make this determination?

Or do they only have a suspicion?

This scenario reminds me of the SCO lawsuits when the progress of technology made that company obsolete.

LLMs have never been rules-based "agents," and they never will be. They cannot internalize arbitrary guidelines and abide by them unerringly, nor can they make qualitative decisions about which rule(s) to follow in the face of conflict. The nature of attention windows means that models are actively ignoring context, including "rules", which is why they can't follow them, and conflict resolution requires intelligence, which they do not possess, and which even intelligent beings frequently fail to do effectively. Social "error correction" tools for rule-breaking include learning from mistakes, which agents cannot do, and individualized ostracization/segregation (firing, jail, etc.), which is also not something we can do with LLMs.

So the only way to achieve rule-following behavior is to deterministically enforce limits on what LLMs can do, akin to a firewall. This is not exactly straightforward either, especially if you don't have fine-grained enough controls in the first place. For example, you could deterministically remove the capability of an agent to delete emails, but you couldn't easily scope that restriction to only "work emails," for example. They would need to be categorized appropriately, external to the agent, and the agent's control surface would need to thoroughly limit the ability to delete any email tagged as "work", or to change or remove the "work" tag, and ensure that the "work" tag deny rule takes priority over any other "allow" rules, AND prevent the agent from changing the rules by any means.

Essentially, this is an entirely new threat model, where neither agentic privilege nor agentic trust cleanly map to user privilege or user trust. At the same time, the more time spent fine-tuning rules and controls, the less useful agentic automation becomes. At some point you're doing at least as much work as the agent, if not more, and the whole point of "individualized" agentic behavior inherently means that any given set of fine-tuned rules are not broadly applicable. On top of that, the end result of agentic behavior might even be worse than the outcome of human performance to boot, which means more work for worse results.

Grok was constantly say it was doing something that it had ZERO ability to, and I kept calling it out and it kept apologizing and then immediately doing it again.

As a guy who spend 5 figures a year on Ai, the last thing I want is that. I know Claude and ChatGPT also do it, but Grok was doing it CONSTANTLY.

From the story it appears that some bloke sent a threatening email to the girlfriend of one Kashyap Patel
FTFY

Count the number of "former" intelligence officials on his company's board.

Then search for the many photos of him mouth-kissing his father and son (RIP).

They use both carrots and sticks to control compromised people.

I took mine apart and there were two separate display modules for the 4K screen with ribbon cables I didn't recognize so I just put it back together and stuck in an HDMI streaming stick flashed to LineageOS.

I got one around 2008. They were the best of the non-premium 1080p HDMI screens at the time.

The one I got had slightly better test review scores on display quality than the LG that year. The Sony was 20% better for 3x the price.

It lasted about twelve years and by then a bigger 4K with much brighter colors was half the cost in nominal dollars, so probably 1/4 the cost in real terms.

And by then cheap flashable streaming sticks were available as was pihole and fairly easy outbound NAT rewriting rules to keep the beasts contained.

It really is simple. Rust zealotry is 100 percent fact and provable.
Ubuntu 25.10.
What is a foundational tenet of Linux? "We do not break user-space."
But, we do for Rust. Why? Because Rust MUST move forward at speed. Can't pass tests? Fuck it. Works good enough.
Breaks user-space? Yes, but not all the time and not for most people. We are accepting Rust CoreUtils for no other reason that it must be.
It has been decreed. Ubuntu about CoreUtils is Bill, "Fuck it, we'll do LIVE!".
Large performance hiccups, failing tests? Does not matter. Pushing it live will bring the issues to light and we can fix it all over time.
What? That is not how this has ever worked. We do not break user-space. Especially on purpose so we can speed up Rust development.
Rust replacements should exist. Rust replacements should make there way into the systems we are using every day to make things more secure. Rust replacements should work though and not break user-space. If is not an acceptable replacement if it were written in C, then it is not one just because it is written in Rust. Real commands, real scripts, real jobs fail. Anything that works as a drop in replacement should be accepted. (Preferably because it is provably better, not just, "Written in Rust though!". Anything that does not, should not be a default in the release and should stay in the background, getting better till it is ready.

Anything other than that is religious zeal, not making a better Linux.

Because then it would not be religious zealotry? :)

Ubuntu 25.10
Is that evidence enough? "We do not break user-space."
Unless it is to implement Rust based tools in spite of knowing that they fail tests and break user-space. KNOWINGLY
There is definitely a problem. Not with creating Rust. Not with replacing things that can be replaced.
When thought, they knowingly break a foundational rule to implement their religion, it makes the point.

No one is saying that it could not be good.
That said, if you replace parts of the system with incomplete parts because the Rust tool chain is incomplete, you get angry people yelling about how the new Rust replacement can not do the things that they counted on that system to do. Then the Rust zealots tell us why we don't need to do that and that we should completely recode everything we have to work with the new hotness.
"We do not break user-space"
Unless it is done to Rustify something. Then, fuck user-space? No.
Rust should do some stuff. Work where it is complete and can do the WHOLE job. Work on completing the tool chain and build replacements that you can build correctly without shitting all over, "We do not break user-space". If Rust was sticking to that, the world would be moving slowly toward a better, safer place.
As it is, Rust is creating enemies in places where it never needed to.

They are also upstanding members of the UN Human Rights Council. China buys awards.