That's silly.

The largest objection is the panopticon, and people's nose in others business with out the warrant or need. Remember probable cause?

What about liberty and freedom? Freedom of association? Oh, wait, that must be another constitution.

Speed cameras, red light cameras, cameras in general need to go. Raise taxes, employ competent LEOs to give fat tickets for witnessed offenses. Soon, you're going to be convicted based on AI, which as a non-human, is unable to be challenged in a court because it can't be cross-examined. What of that constitution?

This'll happen while the kleptoclass are flying over you in their drones or private jets, as you battle the streets, waiting for you to spit, so you can be fined because you're the new profit center. Yes, you.

It's not about your politics, it's about basic privacy and functionality issues. A commonality among those that don't want to be the product, is finding ways that prohibit being involuntarily monetized.

The AI rubric serves only the tech bro fortunes, and not those of the individual. It appears on the surface to be of value, but AI inconsistency, and the addictive quality of short cuts then strangles users and their needs.

This isn't about anybody's lockstep. It's about values and liberty, and human worth as opposed to shipping one's value to somebody for their kleptocracy purposes.

Lincoln freed the slaves.

Don't become one. A well-lived life doesn't work like that.

The influencer-fed Become A BIllionaire rubric is for suckers.

Face the fact that you only enrich the predatory class, and the barriers to entry for the entrepreneurial class are higher than most can jump. Realistically, this means most people reading this.

Wanna use my new AI-generated Face Generator?

Tired of the same old face, and need a new one? We can help.

We can overlay it on your favorite license motif, all ready to go! The barcode will match!

None of that tawdry barrier stuff for you! Discord needs you NOW!

Although NASA engineers are criticized for "What could go wrong?" there are many use cases when you're going 23Kmph in a finite structure built for weeks of living that can and do go wrong.

No, it's not pure oxygen, but fire control, unexpected EMI/RFI, outgassing plastics, all are major and life-threatening events to deal with.

Woe the day when an unapproved/untested device becomes a death weapon, or distorts a signal in such a way as to render bad navigation, etc.

Nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

The IP gateway used will have to deal with latency outside of edge cases. And although there is FCC testing of Apple devices, these devices compete with other resources for transient earthlinks.

Yeah, what could go wrong? This is what happens when you put your buddies in charge of important research agencies.

There's a truth problem, as in truth in advertising and avoiding fraudulent bait-and-switch problems. Such alterations make people doubt everything, and while suspicion and skepticism is a good thing, it shouldn't come as the result of constant misleading marketing.

Gone is the era of consumer protection from public policy; this might add it back.

If you read my post, you'll see that we agree. The attempt at labor cost reduction makes agentic AI into some sort of being, which it is not. Using the context of being is an attempt to incorporate AGI, which is plainly evil.

Make them pay taxes, and you further the incorporation, and the damage that act does.

The taxation has to be of people. There is plenty of imbalance that needs correction in the tech sector. The wealth at the top needs a healthy slice to run the nexus of what government should do towards humanity, not the Libertarian version of this.

AI Agents are not people. They are not soylent. They have no rights. They are not real, they are machines and silicon goo. Make no mistakes about this.

Their works are not copyrightable, and if they are used as tools for humans to steal, then those humans are thieves.

If they spew advice that is bad, then the authors of the software that spew bad advice are liable.

Never conflate humanity with machinery, the two are completely different, and this is obvious, and lies that try to make the differences subtle, are propaganda marketing deceptions.

Instead of directly addressing the backlash, he glosses it. Doesn't give tangible, palpable answers to the deserved anxiety the public has about both training of networks, their models, the results of those models, or how to increase confidence in AI-- at all.

Doesn't dress down the fools delivering new bad LLM versions each month to keep in the investors eyes.

Doesn't talk about the rejection of datacenter resources in so many areas.

Doesn't talk about how to keep useful evolution from drowning in its own noise.

Like the Wizard of Oz, don't look behind the curtain, please.

It's nice he's eating his own dog food.

I hope it's not poison.

They invent solutions to problems no one has, but with enough marketing, you might believe them. Each Microsoft product launch seeks to trade on monopolization and barrier creation, rather than addressing real-world, real-workplace problems.

Teams is an emblematic example of copycat mildly-interactive collaborative apps that seem to work with each other. They answer rival applications by doing *just enough* to mimic rival functionality.

Adding agents will only add a layer of complexity, and lack of suitable cohesiveness and audit. But Microsoft will dump it in to the OS, like the harrowing Co-Pilot additions that are uniformly unloved. There is no advantage, only lock-in for proprietary methods looking for a problem.

The lofty and generous allocations of yore have been mangled beyond recognition. It's all politics but mostly money that rules the IPv4 scene these days. Were it a perfect world, unused space not found in TLD reference would be auto-reallocated as needed. Not gonna happen.

So we are stuck with the current reality, no vision, just exception handling for the next 10-20 years.

Public policy is absent. Already faux and mutant IP-like network tunnels are developing to thwart political and extortion hacking. Look for these to become the next mushrooming problem. On the outside, they appear normal, but inside, there are swathes of proprietary munging going on. It's embryonic today and a nightmare tomorrow.

And, despite virtues, what happens?

Why did AT&T get such a massive Class A block?

Even ham radio got the full 44.

Then, even more virtuously, IPv6 was invented with no mandates to be interactively compliant, no testing rigor, NADA.

It's indefensible. The IETF isn't a deity. It takes more to make a massive change after the fact, and look at the statistics, the implementations, the emphasis you cite in education. This is failure, on a broad and stupid scale. I wish it weren't so. But these are facts.

Astonishingly huge swaths are given away of the IPv6 address space. This doesn't count possible exponentiation to numbers that approach infinity, never get there, but are mind-boggling nonetheless.

The debacle renders clusterfuck-grade madness. We should expect better than this.

I understand the standards fully.

It's the implementations and supporting components, from old router, recalcitrant ISPs, end point walled gardens across the planet, and much other gear that may, or not, do one thing (perhaps correctly) and many bad things more commonly.

Citing standards is fine, it's the implementations that are diffuse, incorrectly installed, with ignorance and even malice towards IPv6 for sins it didn't commit-- just the results when connections don't work, or DNS is incorrectly implemented, or worse, poorly thought-through settings are chosen. Is it a bad rap? Yes.

That's the reality I find. No matter the standards, BS implementation thwarts IPv6 today, across the planet.

The address shortage also amounted to CIDR hoarding. The original allocations gave away huge swaths of space-- which in turn, were poorly implemented until suddenly, they were "gold". Some receiving early allocations auctioned them off to others, who in turn, parlayed them into more gold (or negotiating gold) along the way.

It's my belief that the IETF could've done this differently, and ARIN along with it. Vendors only haltingly implemented IPv6, and the worst problem came with endpoints and endpoint gear makers. Did they lead the way? No. Did they browbeat endpoint makers? No. Did they help find test suites to vet implementations? No. Did they fail? No, but it's not unlike the joke about how many plumbers does it take to change a light bulb? The answer: Wrong Union.

And just like daily auto traffic, you have to watch out for the other guy, who didn't signal and is talking on his phone.

The problem is: There is no standard way, just a bunch of them, because of the many mutant implementations.

This isn't horseshit, this is the reality of what network engineers have to deal with, not to mention the civilians who are just trying to learn enough to get by. Then they discover that the address space covers most atoms in the known universe, perhaps more.

Inside various operating systems, there are largely standard, and then sometimes, um, variations on how to pipe into IPv4 walled networks from varying compute spaces.

While I stand by the fact that IPv6 networks work as advertised, the day to day reality is that it is indeed, a clusterfuck of adoption problems. It solved a problem that didn't exist at the time, despite much hype to the contrary. Worse, it could've been better but because people were burned, there is a dual-system, and any possible improvements will cause moans of the like you have rarely heard in computing because everyone will point to the CF as evidence of adoption problems.