It's got a butt ugly design, it's roundy, transparent, plasticy, has the commodore logo on it, primitive, and it's got a SIM card.

You know what that means? It's still fully trackable, it will give you false feelings of safety, a phone without the bloat for sure, and maybe it's best as a 30$ Nokia simple-phone (yes they sell those), but this is a 500$ simple phone in disguise, and with a design that is so ugly that I can't even see it sell to people like me who actually used and coded Demoscene stuff back in the 80s.

Did they actually test the memory to see if it was encrypted? How do they know there wasn't an AGESA bug that set the flag in cases where the CPU didn't actually support the feature?

I don't even understand what died in Britain this time. Surely even before today it was up to the parents to purchase a phone or a tablet or any type of a computer and give it to their children. There is no way for google or anyone to know who is using a phone or a tablet. Today with AI I suppose it is possible to use filters to attempt automatic detection of the person who is livestreaming and allow AI decide if this person is old enough and if not the livestream will then be terminated (or prevented). This will teach children a few things. First of all it will teach them about VPNs, it will also teach them about disguising their identity to the computer, who is looking at them, while they are showing themselves off to the world. They will find new and creative ways to get around these restrictions, they will not 'innocently play', as politicians are promising. There will not be a return to the "good old days". Parents will set up phones and tablets for their offspring because it is easier than to parent and that will be that.

Yes, and there's another reason to it as well (old fart ranting here):

When you do suggest that LLMs can be terrific and explain why they CAN be useful, old professional coders will often chime in, chop your head off and absolutely hate on you, every move you make, everything you say with passion.

I'm old so the last time that happened I just said "oh you're right, I didn't think about that, my bad" and they were happy.
Do you think I stopped experimenting with the tools? Not in any way. In fact I run my own local LLMs now on (I feel kinda super lucky) hardware bought the last few years before pricing became absolutely insane, so I have some hardware to do that, glad I did not sell those, but that's getting offtopic, I did warn - I'm an old fart so I do rant a lot.

But I do experiment a lot too.

For anyone who cares, here's the skills you do need:

- Your prompting needs to be god-tier level, it's like in the olden days we used to say "Google it", well most people had no clue WHAT to google, because they often didn't have the initial skills to know what to look for. LLMs are the same, they have various training, you need to know their limitations and ask questions sharply and very focussed, not like you'd ask a human (because they're not), but kind of extremely specific, like you would with a computer.

- Have thousands of hours with AI prompting, experimentation, build and learn to scaffold your code. Build frameworks with your AI, compartmentalize your code so you don't have to ask LLM to re-code everything from scratch every time, saves tokens, saves on context memory (especially important if you run locally). The thousands of hours with using the models will help you become an expert in using it as a tool, surprise - just like any other tool.

Just because you can prompt and get results, doesn't mean you'll get good results, you need to get good at recognizing the failure points, what it responds to well and where it fails, and learn to tighten your scaffolding skills. The more direct, focused you are, the more NOTES you take of your project, such as naming the items in your apps, naming the tasks in your app (accurately, not loosely like this), the more high quality your results will be.

- You also need to be a great project manager and note taker. Take tons of notes, document the hell out of everything you do, and have your LLM document EVERYTHING. Make things tight so an Idiot (me) could understand it even with meager coding skills (I might be humble here, but in my world everyone is better than me, it helps because you anticipate you could be wrong, this is good!).

Learn the above well, be humble, use several approaches, learn from that, and you'll be surprised how dangerous and amazing these tools indeed are. I've honed my local model skills to become so damn good I code actually good games today with the help of ONLY local models, we've reached that point - we were NOT at that point just 9 months ago.

No joke!

You are suggesting quite a few things, except you don't like to actually say directly what it is that you want to happen. Here is one thing you said: "Elon Musk should be a wealthy man, no doubt about it but a trillionaire or hell even a $100B is a failure of our economy, our culture, our society or our politics." - 100B is not Musk anymore, it's more than Musk, who I consider to be a con artist.

What you are implying to calling 100B owner a failure of economy and culture and society and politics is that it should be impossible for some reason for a person to accrue enough ownership of private resources to be at that level. It is your inadequacies that are showing here and it is your word play that we are debating. What you are suggesting is oppression and tyranny, nothing less, which is what is required for a person not to be able to accrue any amount of wealth regardless of how it is obtained.

How about this: "I mean, he does. He also still is one person with 24 hours a day, does he actually provide enough productivity to justify tens of millions every day?" - nobody has to justify anything, if they are able to accrue some wealth beyond your imagination does not make it wrong that a person should be able to do so.

To this I have already answered: "Explain this (i am fully anticipating Libertarian-Randian gobbledygook)" - obviously a large amount of accumulated wealth is represented by a business and this business clearly benefits the society much more than the individual who runs it, otherwise the company wouldn't be valuable enough for you to pay attention how wealthy the owner of this company becomes.

This: "Everything you said would equally apply if he was worth $1B as it does $1000B so what does he need the extra 999B? His lifestyle changes 0%. He can still own and run companies." - implies that a person shouldn't be able to have ownership in a company that is growing in value, Musk or anyone else. So if you build a company that becomes so valuable people invest into it enough that its market share, its profits are so large that the value exceeds 100B (on paper, doesn't matter). If you are the single largest owner of the stock in this company your shares go above and beyond 1B.

You are pretending that you are not suggesting confiscation (oppression by the voting majority) yet what else are you suggesting? Be clear, what are your demands and goals? I already see the reasons, jealousy and ideology with a strange belief that a person shouldn't be able to own something of serious value for some reason.

This: "And I would ask just the same what the unhealthy fixation on defending the massive wealth inequality?" - I am FOR wealth inequality, it's the only thing that actually motivates people to move forward with business ideas in the first place. If wealth equality was the goal, nobody would be ruining their lives trying to run a business.

This: " I'll guess if I ask for the alternative you'll point to "communism" and I will just say you are not a serious person with a serious position. Like I said, Randian nonsense." - you are the one bringing up communism and Randian ideas, whatever, you are fixated on the nomenclature.

This: "You say you want to "protect private property" as if what I am suggesting eliminates private property in any fashion." - of course you are. You are suggesting this exact thing, you wouldn't be happy until there wouldn't be "wealth inequality". This requires that people cannot own things cannot operate things as they see fit, cannot go beyond some artificial number that is stuck in your head. You think 1B is plenty and 100B is too much, whatever that is all about. In reality it's all garbage. A person who made a billion dollar company can use the money that he makes to start more companies and eventually go much further than 1B dollars and this bugs the shit out of you because you are on a mission.

I am 100% certain you were the one bringing up communism, I was not. I am against destruction of private property rights, which is what you are suggesting.

what is unsatisfying to you? I am absolutely against majority oppressing a minority via government intervention, a minority in this case is people with more money than most The tyranny of majority leads to redistribution of resources. Communism is not even supposed to have a government. As someone born in the former USSR half a century ago I can point at that system and absolutely refuse it. I can also point at any oppressive system and refuse it. You are proposing an oppressive system, oppression by the force of government backed by the tyranny of majority. I am against it, it leads to destruction of freedoms, economic freedoms being the only ones that matter.

inequality is the resulr of ability to own property and I want this to be protected regardless how much property because I have seen the alternative and it is misery.

What is this unhealthy fixation on what someone is "worth"? It is not a billion tons of gold, it is not a quintillion tons of grains. It is a fiction, a fleeting number on paper that signifies current valuation of a business. Musk does not have a trillion dollars under his mattress. Not even 2 billion.

I think Musk is a con artist, but why is it difficult to wrap your head around a person benefiting less from his billions than the society? Society gets to use these billions in many ways more than the person himself. Society gets the products made by the businesses that are valued at billions, society gets the jobs and paychecks from all of this money. What does the person get except for a headache of dealing with the norms and rules and taxes imposed by the society upon his business? He really doesn't eat much more than the next guy, though his meals will be more expensive because they are cooked by some private chefs. But the cost of the food, chefs, housing, airplanes, whatever is negligible compared to the value of the company that society gets to enjoy. Even just the trading of the stock market allows people to have something to invest into, there are jobs, there are products, then there are various contracts required to maintain this business, so there are other side businesses that rely on the gigantic companies owned by the billionaire.

Again, a billionaire personally can use maybe a few hundred million dollars, maybe even a couple of billion (if he buys a couple of yachts and a few mansions). The gain to the guy is completely negligible compared to the gain to the society. It is like infrastructure in itself, that's what these huge businesses are. To say that this is 'Libertarian-Randian gobbledygook' is simply to use a personal attack in place of an argument.

But again, I am fully convinced Musk is a gigantic fraud, running his empire almost exclusively on vaporware.

You autistic spazz nerds finally used your time for something worth it.

Ok Abu Scheisse.

Women do not want children in more numbers than ever because they are not marrying, because they follow each other on instagram and other mass hysteria sites where they promote hedonistic living to each other and yes, much of it requires resources and time that otherwise would be allocated to rearing children. Unmarried women rely on the government systems that women (and womenized men) have promoted and voted for over decades. This promoted disconnect between generations, grandparents and other family members are not involved in helping with the kids as previously. Two income household means women are working (because of inflation caused by the women as a voting block people are forced to pay insane percentage of earnings as taxes). Taxes used to subsidise classes of people, especially single women require so much more money that women im families have no choice but to work. Their husbands' earnings are more than halfed by the taxes, so need 2 people to work where previously 1 would have sufficed.

So women as a voting block created the environment of high taxation and subsidization, this in turn requires that more women entered the workforce than ever before. None of this is child friendly, women as a block are truly pushing towards childless society. This is self defeating, the people with more children will inherit the world, which will roll back most of these anti child policies. This will require a demographic collapse first, which is coming within a few decades. Within just 2-3 decades most of the world that has anti child policies will be very old of-course. The age of single childless people will cause an age of single old people. Their policies will die off with them giving apace and rise of various fundamentalist cultures, for example Islam. The only hope is that Israel also keeps their births up and somewhat balances out the Islamists. If not, then the few remaining non muslims will feel very lonely on this planet indeed.

You said "Open Source development." Which in the grand scheme of things is pretty small.

Did some dictionary hit you on the head when you were a little spazz?