Your belief that Windows users don't run into these troubles is quite mistaken. Recently a small organization tried to use a printer that was connected via WiFi with Windows and I was involved in helping them. The problem unsolved itself repeatedly. Get the printer working. Awesome. The next day ... WTF? It stopped working. The users did not have admin privs, and nobody was trying to do anything out of the ordinary either. At least with Linux, when you get something like that set up it stays properly set up. Admittedly, this is a single anecdote, but so was yours.

Your post represents a phenomenal misunderstanding of pretty much every issue you tried to address. Cybersecurity is *not* the same as Internet Security, and the web is not the internet. Almost all of today's systems run on Linux, and AI can now find flaws that have been zero days for decades. Exploits include, but are not limited, to local escalations. Really, you wrote so many words without really saying anything that even remotely suggests that you know what you are talking about that I am at a loss to even try to take it all in and respond to your post further.

We know that Meta is a blood sucking entity, and you even admit that. Your assumption that lawyers who represent clients that seek redress for known wrongs are "blood suckers" just shows your bias against lawyers. Some lawyers are blood suckers, but all "Metas" are blood suckers, and calling a lawyer that represents a truly wronged party a "blood sucker" is absurd.

If you were a serial killer would you allow cops to investigate you, or would you kill the cops before they found out who you are if you could get away with it? The point isn't that Meta is doing something unexpected. The point is that Meta is a bad actor who will do whatever they can to continue to feed off of society and profit, and will go to (almost?) any lengths to stop anyone who might get in the way.

That is a lot of words to say that you didn't know that a witticism can become a trope, and you didn't understand my point because you were so busy trying to prove me wrong. Off you go now ...

The problem I am addressing here is that man (most?) people see AI and think it is an alias for LLM. The general term you are looking for is "AI Stack", for which AI is the short form. An AI Stack can (and currently typically does) include a LLM, but there is much more to the stack. One possible layer is the machine vision component you describe. There is a difference between generative and agentic AI, but a complete AI stack these days has both as part of a complete AI system, as well as additional components. IBM has quite a few videos on Youtube that go into great detail about all of this.

It's a common trope, but there are at least two problems with it. The first is that it assumes no two people ever died with a shared secret, which is absurd. The second is that the game isn't over yet unless they are all dead. Someone could still come forward on their death bed to reveal that it was a team.

Who said it is a "single coding style"? Imagine a small team. One is a system architect, another is a domain expert, yet another is the person who authors papers and release emails, and two more people write code. It has been speculated that a single person would have to have deep knowledge in multiple domains, and nobody has provided irrefutable evidence it isn't a team who happens to know what code reviews are and how to use them.

This is a core misunderstanding that is often repeated by people who haven't researched AI system design. The new models are not LLMs, though they do have one component in the stack that is an LLM. What you are doing is talking about a web stack as though it was just a database, then talking about what databases can and cannot do ... essentially saying "databases can't create user interfaces!" ..."I really hope people will stop over-hyping these database thingys." For the record, the linked video doesn't paint the whole picture, but is merely intended to make the point that the picture is much bigger and more nuanced than all of the "LLMs can't ..." types are aware.

All outgoing session negotiations are also incoming traffic. Season negotiation is bidirectional. How do you expect a server to receive the outgoing packets for the client as incoming packets to the server during initial session negotiation?

People always seem to assume that Satashi Nokimoto is a single person, and if it isn't then there will always be some evidence pointing to "this is the guy" and some other evidence that "this isn't the guy", but I suspect it is team. Solving a puzzle basing the approach on a false assumption is a great way to guarantee you can't solve it.

I can't wait to hear your answer to this: How do you propose to establish sessions if all inbound traffic is blocked?

I get that you are an idiot. What baffles me is your intense need to tell everyone else what an idiot you are.

It was only a lie of omission if the pertinent information was intentionally withheld dipshit.

There are two categories of realtime: soft and hard. Realtime is complicated, and no OS can guarantee hard realtime if the hardware is not up to the task (excuse the pun.) For example, if you are running an OS written in assembly language on am Intel 8051 microcontroller clocked at 10 Mhz you cannot handle events that could easily achieve hard realtime on a modern system, because the task switching overhead alone precludes such capability, even if your application is just an infinite loop.