Alright so I don't know much about the US legal system. Imagine my lawyer uses genAI, gets caught for "hallucinations" and I lose the case. Can I then sue my lawyer for that? How likely is it that some other lawyer accepts to represent me in that case?

Because it's not the same.

Humans make honest mistakes all the time, we fix them and move on, and we give benefit of the doubt. If we can prove that the mistake isn't an honest one, then it's different, but you haven't mentioned anything (here or below) that suggests otherwise in the case you mention.

Using generative AI is making a conscious decision to use a technology that makes shit up. There should be no tolerance for that.

I don't know which question you are answering but it's not the one I asked.

Does every computer need to be managed though? Isn't there value in saying, for some subset of users, "you're using Linux, you're on your own for security updates and you're responsible for your machine's security"? Possibly with some guidelines and recommendations.

Or perhaps a more interesting question: where is the evidence that enterprise-level management of PCs saves more money than it costs?

I have been conducting research on combinatorial optimisation for more than two decades. What you say is not true.

First, genetic algorithms are not a good approach for solving the TSP. If you want an exact solution then the best methods are based on branch and cut, for example Concorde. It can solve surprisingly large instances. If you want something close enough, this particular implementation of the Lin-Kernighan heuristic works surprisingly well and way faster than any genetic algorithm.

Second, and way more importantly, it is a fallacy that LLMs can "take into account even more variables and get closer". In fact, optimisation is one of the fields that have not been impacted in any game-changing capacity by the LLM developments of the past few years. An LLM might get you a decent solution for a small instance of a difficult problem, if you're lucky. The solution might even satisfy all the stated constraints, if you're very lucky. It will not scale well when input size increases.

Sometimes it's about the journey. And sometimes it's about a destination that is not the one you see. Have you considered that this person enjoyed the whole process, and enjoys sharing their findings?

Note: this reply is for the post above your, my bad

Steam makes it irrelevant that a game has no Linux version, you just click on install then on play and you're playing the game. That's two clicks. How do you not see the appeal of that.

Other pros of using the Steam client: automatic game updates, automatic controller setup, dlc management, mod management, automatic proton parameter setup, I'm sure there's more advantages that I forget. Steam also makes it very easy to invite a friend to play with you, but there is no technical reason why this should be hard anyway.

Just to be clear I am not trying to convince you, I also see the value of owning the binary, without DRM, and doing what you like with it. But as a long-term Linux user who likes videogames, and who used Wine way before Proton existed, I most definitely see the value brought by Steam here. I also have Lutris, Battle.net and the EGS installed on my computer, and they all have been used to launch some games successfully at some point, but I almost never use them, and I expect that next time I start one or another, there will be some tinkering required better it actually works.

I think one valid complaint is the use of DRMs.

The complaints from Epic are in bad faith: Epic wants a part of the cake but brings nothing to the table. So they try to create appeal through artificial means like giving away games, or with exclusivity deals. They are basically throwing money to become relevant enough that they can be profitable without having to throw money. If that ever happens, you can be sure that there will be no more free games. Meanwhile Steam is sustainable and superior on features.

How likely do you think it is that NASA can fly an emergency mission to the moon, and back with extra passengers, on short notice?

If you have to search for how to do something, then that thing is not easy enough to do. Sure, it's a computer where the user is root and memory is shared by all apps so technically you're right, anyone can write their own program and the user does control the computer. I also understand that there was no need to write a program in order to kill Clippy, that's beside the point. In practice, when a layperson clicked on that cross with the obvious intent that Clippy stops running, Clippy didn't stop running, it winked at you then minimise itself (slowly).

It annoyed the shit out of everyone, and could not be killed. People only remember it for how annoying it was. Microsoft has never been good at making likable things. Their success is in making people and organisations dependent, not enthusiastic. I'm not sure why they even pretend.

Which western country is doing well at the moment, and why?

Leaving Nazi content available in the US has led to the current shit show that the US is, that is a quick decent into authoritarianism. I don't think it's the only reason, I don't think it's the main reason, but I'm certain it has helped. Leaving the Nazis visible and available to the public has allowed one thing and that is for them to spread an amount of lies so vast and overwhelming that it cannot be addressed or "debated on the marketplace of ideas". I'm not saying that the solution is censorship, and I do believe that there's a lot of useful idiots with a lot of power (mediatic or financial) in this unfolding of events. But I do see that there's a problem and that letting Nazis be Nazis has made things worse.

Does that also apply to people eating too much meat for their health? That's a lot of people...