There is so much wrong with what you said it's hard to fathom.

> Your problem starts here. Right to privacy is a human right

Show me where in the American constitution where you have a right to privacy? The 4th amendment is against unreasonable search and seizure. It's a hard steep climb from that to privacy as a right. Now that Planned Parenthood v Cassey and Row v Wade have been repealed, it's even a harder sell.

> you cannot lose a human right

Who gives you rights? This entire concept of "human rights" is very recent. The earliest beginnings may have been the Magna Carta in the 1200s, but the entirety of Roman, Sumerian, Arcadian and other civilizations knew no such concept. Roman Citizens had certain legal standings in societies, and that citizenship could be earned, but it's a far cry to say they had a concept of "rights," in the way we've had for only the past few centuries. You can absolutely 100% lose a "human right" anytime you travel outside an area subject to the jurisdiction of a nation you hold allegiance to which has given you those rights.

Rights are bestowed by the State, often fought for by citizens, and are only enforced by collective belief. Is the Freedom of Speech a human right? Because it literally exists no where outside America. Europeans can go to prison for questioning verboten parts of history. British people can go to prison for teaching their dog to raise a paw in a German salute for a comedy bit. New Zealand has a national censor who decides when news content is illegal for people to possess. Only Japan gets even remotely close.

> regardless of what you do. It can be temporarily restricted if another thing has priority, but it cannot be removed

Distinction without a difference. You have no rights in prison. There are two legal forms of slavery in America: The military and prison ... both are voluntary when you really think about it. Your rights are totally removed. You don't get all of them back in most states. Gun ownership and voting are often restricted. Now I think that's wrong and those rights should be restored, but what you may wish for isn't realize. Sex offender lists are another one.

> Hence people like you are into violating human rights and as soon as that starts to be a general sentiment, a state/group/organization is on a very dark path. Yes, you may be able to get some statistic to look better this way. But you have lost something far more valuable.

What strawman directed bullshit. You drew all that out from my limited statement, making deep connections with my philosophy on rights, with made up arguments I never even tried to make? Going back to the original statement, do you not think we should allow these groups to pool together prisoner information using search technology to try to at least get some of them out that can turn around an contribute to society? I don't even know what argument you're making.

I think the idea is identifying people most likely to succeeded and get them out. This makes slightly more sense for LLMs, if you're just talking about reading a lot of public data for people who have no right to privacy anyway due to the harm they caused others.

16% sounds pretty low, but it's probably reasonable. There are a lot of people in prison who can't be let out. I'm sorry, you stab someone, the chance of rehabilitation is very low. If they get 20 years, they need to stay in 20 years. Maybe they'll be too old to hurt anyone then, or the time will make them realize how shit they are. Most often a lot, they'll commit a violent crime again and then won't get out ever. I think of this tragic case of a woman who befriended her mom's killer and was then murdered by him after she helped him get parole:

https://people.com/crime/ark-w...

There is a kind of suicidal empathy in wanting to help everyone on the street or in the prison system. It denies the realize that for over half the people on the street, they have literally fucked over all their friends, all their family members and anyone who could possibly help them. Their friends are now others on the street who have done the same. Some people don't get in the loop. One of my best friends is a court reporter, and despite all the awful stuff she has to record, she also sees people who come into the court room, cleaned up, their lives turned around and coming off probation. So people can turn around their lives, but they have to want it.

I'm just glad this article wasn't about trying to use AI chatbots to directly change behavior of inmates. That would just be straight up AI-psychosis talk.

>"The real issue will arise when applications start requiring that date to be verified (and the fork won't help then, either)."

Bingo.

Except it won't be FOSS applications. It will be on-line crap. Having the field or not doesn't matter at all. It will be a whole matter of "chain of trust" again, where you don't actually own or control your own system. Linux/FOSS will not meet that requirement and will be rejected. Just like it is rejected in a small amount of DRM games than want to control your system.

At least with the DRM crap, it is not government-related/mandated, so market pressure can be brought to bear on such companies trying to force it. Especially relevant as the Linux "market" keeps growing and starts carrying more clout.

>"SystemD wants to grow up into a REAL despotic gatekeeping process that locks you out of your own hardware for idiotic reasons that only its developer thinks are important, just like the big corporate offerings do!"

Even if present, there is nothing requiring the user actually use a birthdate field. Or that it even be accurate. Could it be a slippery slope? Maybe. But FOSS, like Linux, is ultimately not controlled by corporate dogma or government whims, so it is unlikely that use of the field could be mandated. As long as it is up to the system owner how it is used, that should be good enough.

>"I grew up on the simplicity of Linux's three tenets:"

Those are actually Unix tenets, that Linux just inherited.

But yeah, I generally hate the idea of systemd because it is trying to be all things and in ways that make understanding and configuring things more difficult.

>"So when the battery dies, you can throw the whole device away!"

Indeed. And then it is also extremely difficult to try and recover the battery for recycling, as well, I assume.

So these devices become toxic, non-reusable, non-fixable, highly flammable, dangerous messes.

You seem to have misunderstood.

The claim here is the battery cells are themselves 3D printed, not that they are stuffing already made cells into a 3D printed object. The batteries would not have to "fit in" the 3D print, they would be the 3D print.

So it's actually dumber than you thought.
=Smidge=

> So I already use a tool like this. It's called Voicy. I use it because I've been writing so many long prompts that I developed relatively severe tendonitis in my left arm.

Have you ever used a computer before LLMs became a thing?

If yes, how did you manage to not hurt yourself before your life was nothing but writing prompts?

(Maybe the solution is to stop writing prompts and go back to doing what you did before, is what I'm suggesting)
=Smidge=

You need to scan your drivers license to buy medicine for your runny nose. How long before you need to have your government ID on file to buy any video card with 32GB of ram (like the 5090 or an R9700)? That's where this is really heading. Tracking all off-cloud AI usage like it's a weapon.

>"In no way is it a "first class" anything when it's only for GNOME and only in a snap. [...]There's a 0% chance I'm going to use GNOME or snap."

^^THIS

If it were a project that mapped to many/all Linux distros, using a native package (not container, especially not a SNAP container), worked on any Linux desktop environment (and yes, X11 too), then it would be far more interesting. I might even check it out and give feedback.

>"Must be incredibly relevant. You went out of you way to post how it doesn't affect you."

I am probably not the minority in the views of relevancy and I specifically wrote it could be useful for some people. But, whatever :)

I use Linux on everything. So how relevant is Canonical's announcement for me?

1) I don't use Gnome
2) I don't use Wayland
3) I don't use SNAP
4) I don't use Ubuntu
5) I have no use for desktop dictation since I can type much faster than speaking something, then reading it all again to edit and correct all the mistakes and add all the missing punctuation/etc.

At least they kept it "local" and perhaps some people might find the tool useful. So wake us up when it is a real/native package, can be used on any Linux, on any DE, on any GUI.

>"Mass debt is profitable to the ones pulling the strings of our government."

Actually, it is much more profitable for the colleges/universities that rake in tons of zero risk money and have zero accountability for their admitting and spending/charging behavior.

>"No but if the borrower can't get a good job there should be cause of action for Warranty Act claims against the college. Extremely few people go to college with the expectation of borrowing to be unemployable. "

THIS

The colleges/universities should be held at least partially financially responsible for loan-enrolling so many people who probably are not ready or suitable for college (or at least THAT college) and are destined to either pick a useless major, or drop out. The colleges currently have ZERO risk, and their behavior and spending/pricing exactly matches that reality.

> And what happens is that in the next budget cycle, they say, "Hey, there's all this money over here. We don't need to fund that anymore. And now there's a shortfall again.

I do not know how to parse this sentence.

This isn't intended or designed for ongoing funding. This doesn't factor into the state budget. It's a completely separate fund specifically to shore up health care and education systems that have been neglected due to recent/chronic underfunding. None of this impacts their normal operating budgets year over year,

The best analogy I can think of is a bond. When the government wants to raise money for a project or investment in the future, they will often issue and sell bonds to raise that money. Bonds mature and pay back with some interest, and are not recurring or factored into the normal budgeting. This is functionally the same thing, except instead of borrowing via bonds and paying back with interest it's just a straight up tax on billionaires.

> Absent actual, careful reduction of wasteful spending

I'm willing to bet that there's far less "wasteful spending" than you think there is, and it's just a matter of you not understanding what is being paid for and why. See also: DOGE "savings" and how we're suffering the consequences of cutting "wasteful" spending on programs that were actually really important but not in obvious ways.
=Smidge=