Interestingly that was Microsoft’s vision for Windows where a Windows computer would serve as the home digital hub.
Ironically, it was open source operating systems that made it cost-effective to build the massive data centers that centralized the experience and killed that vision.
The problem with the Windows home computer vision was that it comprised of a bulky beige box with numerous power and data leads snaking out of it and a monstrous CRT based monitor (usually on top) and a huge clacky keyboard. Typically taking 6+ sq ft of table/bench space.
Today's tablets are far more convenient to locate where they are needed and portable as well.
i think there is a fundamental rather simple insight you should probably grasp, instead of shooting the messenger:
the humans, writ large, do not want this LLM revolution.
a handful of well connected folks overruling this and ramming AI everything down everyone's throats will not alter this sentiment to become acceptance instead.
polling is consistent with the articles simple conclusion, so your claim of manufactured outrage rings hollow.
""Proposed Intervenor does not explain how a court’s document retention order that directs the preservation, segregation, and retention of certain privately held data by a private company for the limited purposes of litigation is, or could be, a 'nationwide mass surveillance program,'" Wang wrote. "It is not. The judiciary is not a law enforcement agency.""
This is a horrible view of privacy.
This gives unlimited ability for judges to violate the privacy rights of people while stating they are not law enforcement.
For example, if the New York Times sues that people using an a no scripts addin, are bypassing its paywall, can a judge require that the addin collect and retain all sites visited by all its users and then say its ok because the judiciary is not a law enforcement agency?
> This gives unlimited ability for judges to violate the privacy rights of people while stating they are not law enforcement.
See my comment above in reply to aydyn: in general, "privacy rights" do not exist in American law, and as such the judge is violating nothing.
People are always surprised to learn this, but it's the truth. There's the Fourth Amendment, but courts have consistently interpreted that very narrowly to mean your personal effects in your possession are secure against seizure specifically by the government. It does not apply to data you give to third-parties, under the third-party doctrine. There are also various laws granting privacy rights in specific domains, but those only apply to the extent of the law in question; there is no constitutional right to privacy and no broad law granting it either.
Until that situation changes, you probably shouldn't use the term "privacy rights" in the context of American law: since those don't really exist, you'll just end up confusing yourself and others.
Sure, but scale matters. 99% of images being fake is a different situation than 1% being fake. We can't just ignore that in favor of a "this always happened" argument.
Everything has always happened, so who cares? We need to go deeper than that. Many things that are perfectly a-okay today are only so because we do it on a small enough scale. Many perfectly fine things, if we scale them up, destroy the world. Literally.
Even something as simple as pirating, which I support, would melt all world economies if everyone did it with everything.
Lewis Carroll also was fooled by it, when Churchill showed to him. Abraham Lincoln who was there at the moment it happened confirmed that to me, I can show you the original email he sent me about it (bar the elements I'll have to hide due to top secret information being included in the rest of the message).
> However, the hip bite probably isn’t what killed 6DT19. “We think the individual was incapacitated in some way, and then the animal came along, bit and dragged the body away,” Dr. Thompson said.
Sounds like a polite way to say he was eaten alive
Likely not the case, given (1) the body was peri-mortem decapitated (by a human) and (2) apparent structural damage was limited to a single bite mark (on the ilium), with no signs of "taphonomic" damage (indicating limited soft tissue trauma)? [1]
(1)
> 6DT19 had been decapitated with a single cut between the second and third cervical vertebrae , delivered from behind.
(2)
> Additional [to the decapitation] peri-mortem trauma was present in the form of a series of small depressions on both sides of the pelvis [..]
> Taphonomic damage alone is also unlikely due to the appearance and margins of the lesions, which are the same colour as the surrounding bone (this differs if the break is post-mortem; [56]), and the adherence of bony fragments at the injury site (which occurs when soft tissue is present) .
D was so far ahead of C++98 that it wasn't funny, but garbage collection kept it from being able to be used in the same niche.
D has gotten less dependent on garbage collection but
C++11 (and then 17, 20, 26 (reflection)) have closed the gap enough that it is not the quantum leap that it once was.
reply