Not near as much as you'd like to believe. It takes years for us to grow up, get an education and become useful. Changing what we do can be quite difficult, especially with the time and monetary costs of doing so. Plus inroads by technology can wipe jobs quickly even if they'll eventually be replaced.
When you have a bunch of people scared that they'll starve tomorrow society will fall apart (even more than it has). The rise to authoritarianism will lead to rather bad outcomes in the medium term.
Chess is actually an incredibly good counter-example: The moment women’s chess clubs and teams started proliferating, women started participating much more. Chess had a “guy’s club” connotation to them, and women were effectively excluded because of that. No intentionally excluded, obviously, but effectively.
The vast majority of software on Google Play is absolute spyware-laden slop. There are turstworthy apps, sure, but they are drops in an ocean. F-Droid’s trustworthy-to-ad-ridden-slop ratio is pretty much definitionally lower than Google’s, by virtue of it being actually curated. That everything on it is libre and they are working hard on reproducible builds just makes it all the better.
This is a bunch of opinion though. I'm not saying I disagree, but I do think it's bad faith to state as fact what is opinion. Is Play a "walled garden" or is it not curated? It can't be both depending on what suits the argument. You may disagree with the policies, but suggesting there are no policies in favour user privacy is just false. You may think they aren't enforced sufficiently, but again this is opinion. The policies are there.
F-Droid has the benefit that it essentially doesn't have to deal with malicious actors. It's very easy to have a high quality library when there are no malicious actors.
Incredibly small concession that doesn’t warrant this article’s absolutely insane framing: “Even less of a problem than we thought,” “very, very good news,” “already sounded perfectly manageable.”
The author is so giddy to defend this monopolistic restriction on Google’s part. Hackers can use F-Droid without annoyance, but this really does kill any chance at normies using it. They absolutely will use the worst spyware on Google Play instead, and the author seemingly loves it.
"On our own terms", as long as it's approved by Google,.. for now. Surely we bear no resemblance to frogs in warming water, and we do not find ourselves praying that the deal is not further altered.
So, let's say that rather than actually touching any copyrighted material, a human merely tells an AI about how to go onto the internet and find copyrighted material, download it, and ingest it for training. The AI, fully autonomously, does so, and after training itself on the material deletes it so no human ever downloads, consumes, or shares it.
If we are saying AI is "more than a tool", which seems to be the case courts are leaning since they've ruled AI output without direct human involvement is not copyrightable[0], then the above seems like it would be entirely legal.
Someone would likely get prosecuted if they instructed AI agent to run say a pump and dump scheme...
Even if the final output doesn't have copyright protection it might still be copyright violation. I think it could be reasonable to have work that itself violates copyright when distributed even if it does not have copy right itself.
