You said home ISPs sought to deploy Trusted Network Connect about 20 years ago. It hasn't happened. What's holding it up? The rise of mobile devices, smart TVs, and other devices incompatible with the remediation means available in quarantine?

Perhaps it's time to apply the same methods here that helped deal with spam back in the day: start threatening the ISPs that don't deal with users infected with proxies with having all netblocks belonging to them blocked unconditionally. That works by shifting the complaints from people the ISP doesn't get paid by (the services being scraped) to people it does (it's users who can't access services). We even have the tech needed already: DNS-based RBLs. Condemn providers who host scrapers who don't provide useful user-agent strings or don't comply with robots.txt to the same fate.

We don't need regulations to do this. The services belong to the people who run them, and they've got pretty much free rein to take actions to protect themselves. Is it severe? Yes. Is it disproportionate? Also yes. But then, to avoid it they just have to do one easy thing: not be assholes. If they can't manage that, are we obligated to shoulder the costs of letting them freely be assholes? IMO, no.

They don't. They think of them as something that happens on their computer, with only them involved. They know, in the abstract, that there's a server somewhere, but the implications of that don't really sink in. The same problems applied to e-mail since forever, but everyone dismissed it as something that didn't matter since they didn't use email. Now, though, we're seeing the result of the third-party doctrine starting to hit home in ways the average person does need to care about thanks to the ubiquity of the cloud. Chatbot logs, search histories, email records, Flock cameras, Ring doorbell cameras, ALPRs, documents stored in cloud services, social media histories, messaging service histories... everything involving records stored long-term in the hands of third parties is starting to affect ordinary people in ways they can't ignore. I suspect at some point the law is going to have to change.

I've heard some pretty sad excuses for AI slop (Shunned at a Funeral) but some very clever uses for it too (Amelia). "The best thing the government did...was invent me!"

As long as they're honest about it being AI I'll decide what I want to listen to. It's hard for it to show any creativity, but creativity is sorely lacking in all current music.

...laura

I used to think like this. But I've come to realize that editing, whether by a professional or an AI, is a good thing. It flags when I think I'm being clear, but I'm not. Sometimes that's as simple as reworking a sentence to be less verbose, but other times a simple edit can indicate that the entire paragraph is confusing. LLMs can be quite helpful here, because you can actually ask them what they understand, and they'll give you a good idea of what your readers are actually reading. Even when you are a good writer, it helps to understand what people are actually taking in. A good editor will do this, as will teaching students, but an AI will do it with you all day without complaint and without embarrassment.

all very true, and open source/linux companies like red hat had to release statements that they would cover any legal consequences against your company in case you get sued for using (red hat) linux. i know the company i worked for come pretty close to stopping all linux deployment because of this bs lawsuit, the announcement from red hat came just on time.

those are immigration officers, they can check the phones of immigrant specifically.
normal custom officers need a warrant to search your phone.

They're still playing the "Try to get IBM to pay us to go away." game. It didn't work the first time around. This one's even more futile because this particular argument was dealt with during the original case and IBM proved that the code they contributed to Linux wasn't code belonging to Project Monterrey at all but completely different code IBM wrote themselves for a different product. But I suppose, given the people behind this, lack of pattern recognition skills is a given.

Because the point of Rust is that it's safe by design. In other words, once you've figured out how to structure your program to make it not do unsafe things, you have a design you can just implement in C and (as long as it's a faithful implementation), and it will also be guaranteed to be safe. The only reason not to is that maintenance is harder that way. It also shows that Rust has to many limits because code that is provably safe by a human cannot be written in Rust without a redesign to meet Rust's more limited understanding of safe.

If likes and boosts are overrated, then is there a way to find others' posts about a topic or to get more replies to my posts?

all benchmarks prove the opposite, the kernel keeps getting more capable and faster. it has become bigger for sure, but don't make the mistake of thinking that means it is slower or worse then the cute little kernel we had 20 years ago.

it could, but it wont.

windows should be free, because all the privacy and ads invading things it includes. if linux can be free, i'm sure microsoft can do the same.

Didn't Amazon remove the mandatory arbitration clause a while back because too many users were using it, making Amazon have to spend too much money and time on arbitration? Or was that another large Internet vendor?

From the summary: "Current prices are tied to retail. Without physical discs holding digital hostage we'll see a larger spectrum of pricing." As I understand this, paid downloads did not lower prices of AAA games because of retail price parity contracts. Paid downloads did, however, make the $5 to $20 tier for indie game pricing viable.

One thing not mentioned in the summary is that publishers of games distributed in physical copies owe a royalty to the age rating agency of each region in which a game is published. Publishers of downloadable games do not, instead relying on self-certification through the IARC form. The age rating agencies allow this because it's a lot more practical to update a game once it is found to have been misclassified.