I think we should rewrite everything in Rust and then sprinkle unsafe() around like it was glitter to get most things to work, and then claim it's more secure because "Hey, at least we put warning cones out around the dangerous bits!"...

FYI, the original XBox release price back in 2001 is the equivalent of $569.18 today.

So they're still doubling or trebling the price of something that's now commodity, even once you take into account inflation.

Title 18 is about crimes, yes, and that's why Title 75's definition of "pedestrian" to include delivery robots doesn't affect what Title 18 calls a crime. Title 75 defines traffic offenses, so now you're arguing that this was more like a ticketed civil infraction. Your original claim was that a more serious crime would apply, and you've serially failed to support that.

No, a good lawyer would explain why unlawful restraint doesn't apply in this case.

Section 2903 seems written such that "another" means a natural person (someone who has "liberty", as a robot generally does not, because it is chattel). PA law classifies delivery robots as pedestrians for the purpose of Title 75 of state law, not as people or "another" under Title 18. Do you have some precedent that says false imprisonment can be committed against a robot?

No law says that, just like no law says you as a pedestrian have the right of way over other pedestrians; it says who must yield the right of way. Regardless of who has the right of way, neither you nor professors are generally allowed to block other pedestrians from proceeding down a sidewalk. In Pennsylvania, it doesn't matter if the other pedestrian is a delivery robot.

I doubt the robot called police, and I am sure it will not testify at her trial. Its audio-video recordings might be admitted as evidence, which would be much more convincing about what happened than a person's testimony. Why did you ask?

... such as?

I provided checkable citations, including why a claim of "illegal detainment" (the usual US terms are unlawful arrest and unlawful restraint; the name of the crime varies by jurisdiction) does not apply here. You have not.

Do you think Adam Smith came up with the saying "He who does not work, neither shall he eat"? You can wish that lots of people could have a comfortable life without working, but a working economy needs more than wishes, no matter whether it's a capitalist economy or a communist one. The practical problem is that communist economies rely much more on wishes and oppression than capitalist economies.

I suspect this is wrong. Her behavior doesn't seem to qualify as unlawful restraint because it didn't involve either fear of bodily harm or involuntary servitude. She maybe could be charged with obstructing a sidewalk under Title 18 Section 5507 of state law, but that's a third degree misdemeanor like disorderly conduct is.

Are socialism or communism known for forcing people to engage in more fulfilling, less repetitive jobs than they choose to take under capitalism?

Delivery people have different reasons for taking the job, but it's hella dumb to think that capitalist society is what keeps them from designing buildings or painting masterpieces or building flying cars instead.

"removes support got SysVInit scripts"

Well... there's an OS I'm not upgrading to.

SystemD STILL needs to absolutely die.

because that's less problematic

It's less problematic for some applications. It's quite terrible if you're trying to stay synchronized with something like satellite motion, where it's easier to either use one of the TAI-locked times (like GPS Time) or explicitly handle a leap second than it is to handle smeared leap seconds. Stock traders similarly want to be sure they know exactly what the civil time is so they can resolve trades, rather than smearing a leap second over however many hours or days.

Which means you could have done that all along - you just didn't give a shit. It was more important to you to turn my machines into walking adverts for your products, trying to push everything I own into your cloud, and jump on every fad imaginable, rather than make an OS that would actually allow me to use my machine.

Which is why I don't have any Microsoft OS at home any more.

Oh, and I never had less than 64GB in a Windows machine in the last 8 or so years. But it was still a shitshow.

This sudden "lets make the OS actually work for users" drive is decades too late.

Google says that patent expired in September of 2025, as it was filed in 2005. Yes, we are getting old.

Personally, I prefer the old rectangular Thinkpad charging connectors.

Tesco's - one of the UK's largest supermarkets - came out a few months ago and said "We've migrated off VMWare because of the licensing". They did it in months. On the major backends running every store in the country.

They had a massive dispute with VMWare and are suing them (they say they bought a perpetual licence, VMWare then cut them off), but while they did that... they just migrated their ENTIRE infrastructure.

Sure, it's a big thing to do. But it's not impossible, doesn't take years and - like Tesco - you don't need to wait to do it. If it's THAT business-critical? All the more reason to have an alternative ready to move to at a moment's notice.

Companies CHOOSE to get tied in, they CHOOSE to only ever run one system, they CHOOSE to make the migration painful, they CHOOSE to hold back on it in the hopes they can negotiate to carry on just as they are. And those are all DUMB from a business-continuity point of view and no substantial organisation should be allowing that to happen.

Pretending that huge organisations paying Broadcom millions are somehow powerless in this is actual complicity in the worthless side of IT where everything is just absent of any redundancy, resiliency, independence, failover, etc. etc. etc.