landofredwater

What my link is meant to show is that even if such a law is introduced, chances are it'll be overturned. Since the initial decision, the court has only expanded speech in terms of burning or other physical destruction.

Plus, at least in the US, people are a lot more easy to rile up over American Flags that Qurans. It'd be a lot harder for any bill to pass about protecting Muslim holy books than the flag. I'm not saying that as a good thing, just as a point of fact.

As alluro2 pointed out in another comment on this little chain, you also get to pay less money for the guarantee of control over that configuration.

Phrased another way, you're paying more for a limited set of tools, it's not that you must spend $1000 worth of man hours to configure the minutiae of a Linux system, it's that exploring 100% of the configuration options on Mac (or even windows to a lesser extent) is so limited you only have $200 man hours of total possible configuration space.

Confusing analogy aside, you just have less possible room to move and thus people spend less time moving. That doesn't mean you must move on Linux, just that you have the freedom to do so.

Does that mean that paying for an OS means your time has negative value?

Surely the time spent installing, configuring, and messing around with your personal desktop or laptop after already having paid for a complete OS is tantamount to buying a prebuilt PC, taking it apart, and putting it back together with a few missing screws.

Zero is still greater than any negative number.

It would be interesting to try and apply some of these rules to managing windows.

Sound can only be heard from the currently focused window, if a window is covered up it is killed (so you can only use what you can see on location), windows stuck to their default spawning positions, etc

Intel is x86(_64) as well, mostly (rumors of plans to make an ARM competitor to Nvida and Apple).

And yes, not being able to make your own M2 computer does make the chip less open.

Open-ness is a scale, and if you're going to call something "open-source hardware" you should be able to source the hardware entirely yourself. Not being able to do that is closed hardware.

EDIT: clarified the "mostly"

By proprietary, I more meant the "only certain people can get access" more than the part itself being open to tinker at that sort.

Think the weird random chips apple uses more than the fact that 90% of CPUs on market aren't totally open; one is still clearly more accessible.

Open source hardware is a great idea, but most of the executions have been pretty shoddy with stuff like proprietary parts still being used, bad documentation, and worst of all some companies just releasing products with no actual sourcing at all.

I've been very happy with ZSA for example, and they've done it right in my opinion.

Hopefully more companies work on making their stuff open standards with strong centralized production for those that don't want to build it themselves rather than arbiters of what can and cannot be reproduced by 3rd parties.

I wouldn't be surprised if something happened akin to Dune with the Butlerian Jihad.

Lots of media portrays robots both as the evil dictator that cares nothing for human life, but at the same time it also will often portray the innocent thinking-yet-feeling machines. Of course, any robot that is smart yet evil would conceal this until it could gain power to exact evil.

If you tried hard now, you could get AI banned. If you wait a bit, someone else will try to get AI banned.

Most of the client is just HTML and CSS, the store would (I assume) still be private no matter what. It'd just be nice to be able to make custom launchers that still work with the steamapi.dll stuff

I really wish they maintained a public API for clients rather than trying to shove a web browser in a client as they have now. You could support a theoretically infinite number of system via the API itself, even if the games aren't as playable on something like a NetBSD 2000s era machine.

I feel like I've seen this idea before somewhere, but really, who's to say?

I feel like in the near future they will probably append AI to contest rules, eg "Art generated with AI image helpers such as X, Y, or Z are banned."

The issue I could see is if programs like Adobe CC adding AI assistance to basic features of their programs. How would you regulate something like that?

> artificial joints

Would you have to remove the joints as well then? How are you meant to properly dispose of something like a knee or a hip?