The 1st amendment was added to protect citizens' freedom for political speech and other government "retaliation". It's not a free pass to say anything you want. It doesn't protect slander, incitement to violence, defamation, or the classic "crying FIRE in a crowded theatre".

This case seems to be pretty similar to USRDA labels, where "people have a right to know" certain things about what's being sold to them. And placing a recycling symbol (and even some with a number) when they know the packaging or product wasn't designed to be easy to recycle and is being thrown away by almost every recycling facility is pretty clearly "false or deceptive advertising". It's not so different from placing a "made in USA" sticker over the Made in China mark. I don't see how any court has concluded that they have ANY chance of winning this case, and that's usually part of the bar to meet for an injunction.

Lies and deception come with consequences, and this is one lie that the public is sick of seeing.

Here's some example code of a "wrong" program that is 100% valid:

// well-formed code; no compiler will flag an error
int sum_two_numbers(int a, int b)
{
        return a-b;
}

Is it faster? It sounds really tedious and error-prone to me. If someone were to suggest I quit writing code and instead spend the rest of my career supervising the intern as he writes code for me to review and correct, I'd feel the same way about that.

I love scapegoating individual developers as much as the next guy, but if you take a look at the Win32 API, you'll find loads of fun "features" such as:

- Every single function that takes a string has two implementations: one that ends with the letter A (and takes its strings as ASCII) and one that ends with the letter W (and takes its strings as UCS-16). And then it has a preprocessor-define (with no suffix) that gets expanded to either one implementation or the other, based on your compiler settings.

- windows.h defines preprocessor-tokens for min() and max(), which means any C++ program that ever calls std::min() or std::max() will error out with a very strange compile-time error, if it included windows.h first; the work-around is to define NOMINMAX first to prevent windows.h from polluting the namespace.

- Modern windows is perfectly capable of arbitrary-length file-paths, but ships by default with a 260-character filepath limit anyway, "to preserve backwards compatibility with older software that expects that limitation to be enforced". To get correct behavior you have to hand-modify your registry; otherwise you find out about this limitation when you go to unzip a .zip file and the unzip mysteriously fails even though the .zip file is valid.

These are all defects that other OS's simply don't suffer from, either because the other OS's were designed correctly from the beginning, or because the people in charge of the other OS's long ago took the hit (in short-term breakage) and fixed the problems rather than letting them linger forever to preserve backwards compatibility.

All Windows developers (good and bad) have to deal with these issues, probably forever, and every line of code they add to work around these problems has to be supported and debugged and tested as well, hence the damage compounds.

Before Trump, it was a cultural norm that a President of the United States was expected to follow ethical and moral guidelines as well as laws; not only because anything less would be dishonorable and a disservice to his country, but also because otherwise he would pay a steep political price for his unethical behavior. Trump's most significant political innovation has taken the form of figuring out how to convince a plurality of the American public that the only real standard for Presidential behavior is "whatever you can get away with".

Imagine it's ten years from now, and for $199 anyone can buy an in-home UPS from Home Depot with enough capacity to keep their lights on and their ice cream frozen for 48 hours. Once most houses have one of those, most power outages become more of a minor nuisance than a significant problem.

Part of it may be a dysfunctional corporate culture, but a lot of it is a consequence of Microsoft's business decision to maintain backwards compatibility at all costs. When you're committed to retaining every design mistake, forever, the complexity of the codebase just keeps rising, which means that less and less of it can fit into anyone's mind at one time, which means more mistakes are made going forward, and the technical debt just keeps compounding.

Funny how if it's someone we like, they used it. But if it's someone we don't like, they abused it.

Will it have a Genuine People Personality? Perhaps a cheerful and sunny disposition?

Perhaps the real problem is that there is simply no reliable way to tell a real human's post from a generative AI's post anymore, since by the AIs are trained on the posts of real humans and are asymptotically becoming indistinguishable from them. You certainly can't simply go by post-quality, since the some of the smarter bots are better posters than some of the, err, less-well-informed humans.

Because of that, it's hard to feel good about putting any real effort into a social media conversation, because in the back of your mind you're always wondering: am I engaged in any kind of constructive activity here, or am I just unknowingly humping a rubber doll that Zuckerberg (or somebody) has provided for my amusement?

Wasn't there a scene in Minority Report where the star was trying to run away from the authorities he kept getting his iris scanned by electronic billboards and signs as he ran through the crowded shopping plaza?

IIRC the advertisements and announcements that played started customizing themselves indicating they'd identified a criminal and showing is face and profile?

A Dyson sphere would have significant environmental effects too, and it's equally likely to be built.

If a company came out with a service that would burn your data into a crystal that you could wear as jewelry, and the crystal was reasonably durable (ideally diamond, or something similar), that would be a useful (or at least novel) way to store valuable data long-term. Assuming there was also a convenient way to read it back when required, of course.

This, however, isn't that. The whole point of git is that it distributes copies of your repository onto every client that clones it, so that the likelihood of everyone accidentally losing all copies at once is minimal.

it always annoys me to see announcements of a correlation being described as a cause-and-effect.

Whenever I see cause-and-effect stated without them being clearly distinguished, I always ask myself "could they have the cause and effect flipped around?"

Maybe people that have "younger brains" are much more likely to be in the group that has learned another language recently?"

That seems to be much more likely than the stated order, since people with more youthful minds would be more likely to be learning new languages than others with older, less-flexible minds?

Or stated another way, "younger minds encourage multi-lingual" rather than "multi-lingual encourages younger minds".

...and wouldn't it be nice to get something in return for our tax dollars? Other than billion-dollar ballrooms and pointless wars, I mean?