scaramanga

Only if you consider the training data, the AI company's vetting and training procedures to be representatives of humanity.

To me, they look more like the narrow sliver of humanity which is on display in a business-appropriate setting, or published on a forum like linkedin or github. When restricted to such a view, it's not surprising that it looks like "wow, humans play status games and vie for promotions" or whatever.

I've observed that most "enthusiasts" are really just brand ambassadors. They've been captured by some proprietary software that doesn't run on Linux, and that's the problem of Linux. The day their set of products runs perfectly on Linux is the day Linux will be ready for them.

Switched in, ooh i dunno, '98 or '99. Quality is about where it was then relatively speaking. Sure things have improved, mainly just systemd, and we got ACPI and later power management stuff for laptops.

Prior to that windows was better on laptops due to having the proprietary drivers or working ACPI. But it was pretty poor quality in terms of reliability, and the main problem of the included software being incredibly bare bones, combined with the experience of finding and installing software was so awful (especially if you've not got an unlimited credit card to pay for "big professional solutions").

Every time the year of the Linux desktop arrives, I'm baffled, since not much has changed on this end.

Actually yes, that would be an ideal intervention of state into computing infrastructure.

It could even be revenue generating as, once developed, it could be sold out to the private sector, instead of essentially being taxed by foreign corporations for such basic digital infrastructure as hypervisors and key/value stores.

It could also act as a buffer and wage-stabiliser for people like us, who work in tech, by providing guaranteed employment when the private sector implements layoffs.

I don't know why anyone in our position wouldn't support that.

Billionaires have sabotaged pretty much every aspect of life by using their enormous wealth, power, and influence to hijack our public institutions. They're destroying our country and our way of life. We don't have to bend over passively to receive a shafting.

The insinuation is that they'll use their market position and political influence to extract funds for costly products and services that should be being spent on improving the NHS instead, happily driving the NHS towards a crisis so that they can privatise it. This is the project, and has always been the project of the billionaires. And even if all the current billionaires die and are replaced tomorrow, it will still be the project of the billionaires who replace them. The only solution is to eradicate billionaires.

Another possibility not mentioned here is simply demonstrating that they can get away with not doing so.

Assuming there is even a venue where evidence would be provided for the purpose of being looked at

yes, ICE strike me as deeply and sincerely concerned about both agitators and bringing robust cases to courts :)

Probably for the best...

Like, anyone who would work with some of my previous employers, are places I wouldn't want to work anyway. It's a big wide world out there.

CEOs: the real victims of capitalism.

It's explained in the article. People aren't going to starve to fill their gas tank so you need to grow more corn to offset that used for biofuel. To do that can require destroying other carbon sinks (wetlands are the example given, sometimes dried and then burned) to turn them into fields.

But in any case, carbon from the ground is used to fertilize the fields to grow the corn. For every unit of energy produced by corn using carbon sequestered from the air, it matters how much carbon from oil buried underground is released in the atmosphere to produce that unit of energy. If it's greater than or equal to the amount offset by not burning gasoline, it's a net loss.

All of these factors have to be included in lifecycle assessments, which are the tool to use for deciding if a proposed policy is going to lead to lower atmospheric carbon in the future, rather than simplistic models. Selling someone a simplistic model instead of an LCA is basically lying.

Yeah the gwangju massacre definitely happened, and he definitely authorized it because the troops who did it were under the command of John Adams Wickham.

The agreed framework would have prevented North Korean nukes, had the US actually honoured it. Instead bush tore it up when he came in to office, and then John Bolton fabricated the aluminium tubes hoax to justify it, which was later wheeled out to justify the Iraq war. Then they put north korea on the axis of evil so as to have a single non-muslim state there. All of that, but mostly the Iraq war is what led north korea to develop nukes.

And yeah, the deal was "no nukes (they shut down their nuclear reactor for 12 years unilaterally as a show of good faith) AND no long or medium range ballistic missiles in exchange for $1Bn and fuel oil for heating." Good luck getting that deal now :)