Or the vaping without permission inside someone else's home during a meal.
It's impressive the level of mental gymnastics to jump around both and call the act of kicking them out excessive seeing as both are sufficient justification on their own, let alone together.
My only reaction is something along the lines of finally being able to breathe a breath of slightly fresher air. She has been higher up on my list of Senators to remove than my own state's crooks.
Most of the major components to Linux can't become not-FOSS. It's more likely that Windows will be made into a good, quality, user-respecting operating system.
The base piece of software for your computer being tied to a subscription is unacceptable, period.
Subscriptions are already too heavily pushed and for the most part are just being used to eek more money out of people.
I'm sure this subscription will also get mixed with the ads systems they are bolting into Windows and that stuff is already unacceptable.
Microsoft is treating the market as cattle to farm money, their behavior quite frankly has strayed into morally reprehensible. "Cooling jets" is not necessary, breaking up Microsoft is.
Xcode is such hot garbage, the UX Is what you get when you like pretty and hate your programmer. (Honestly I hate most of Apple's UX.)
Also I compiled a C# app for osx-x64 yesterday on Linux (that works, though I have no idea of I could sign it properly to avoid Apple's annoying side load interference), though maybe it included a binary originally compiled by Microsoft on Apple hardware.
The trivialization doesn't negate the point though, and LLMs aren't intelligence.
The AI consumed all of that content and I would bet that not a single of the people who created the content were compensated, but the AI strictly on those people to produce anything coherent.
I would argue that yes, generative artificial stupidity doesn't meet the minimum bar of original thought necessary to create a standard copyrightable work unless every input has consent to be used, and laundering content through multiple generations of an LLM or through multiple distinct LLMs should not impact the need for consent.
Without full consent, it's just a massive loophole for those with money to exploit the hard work of the masses who generated all of the actual content.
tl;dr: I don't think we can shift to an optimal societal structure overnight, but there are already concrete steps to take along that path that we could and should have already taken yesterday. None of my judgements are based on "is it too hard?" just "will it work, and if it won't work yet what can we do to get to a situation where it will be possible?" Under no circumstances do I think sitting around doing nothing and waiting is the correct decision.
I was sort of masking my thoughts so they may have come out unclear, so I will be more clear:
I think that the future of humanity requires us to become space-faring. Our current ownership model is fundamentally incompatible with us being space-faring and successful at it. We can't transition all of society to a space-compatible structure overnight, it would end in failure since it would cause immediate mass revolt.
I don't think we should wait to make changes to society though. I just think we need a transition and I'm willing to work with anyone who has good-faith proposals on steps we can take now to eventually get there.
From my point of view there's never going to be a time where we can shift overnight because we can't handle that extreme of a shift.
One concession of a space-compatible society unfortunately is the "complete" freedom we have today and the concept of ownership. In a space-compatible society every person must play their part. Only after essentials are covered would people have freedom and ownership, but even still both would be restricted and it would be semi-meritocratic. Security would also become paramount.
Things like single-payer health care and education are relatively basic and realistically speaking should be inoffensive short-term steps that we take. The best time for those steps was yesterday, the second best time is now. Things like UBI would be the step after that, and role-optimization would come after even UBI because that's when we begin to lose some freedom. I think role-optimization is something we can't even implement yet but would cause riots and it would take a generation or two with the previously mentioned things before it could be applied society-wide (it's already something that will be required for early space colonization).
I'm very left leaning but I don't think we as a society are necessarily ready for the optimal societal structure, and I know I don't know what the best path to getting us there is.
I'm not against opposition parties, I think that we ideally need a bunch of distinct viewpoints at the table, but all of those distinct viewpoints should meet some minimum bar of human decency and respect.
Right now I think some of the stuff the GOP fights for is demonstrably below that bar, and I am not referring to the quiet and unheard constituents, I'm referring to the people with the loudspeaker.
Some examples of viewpoints that don't get a seat at the table are pro-slavery, pro-genocide, pro-sexual abuse, pro-fake medicine, pro-corporate ownership, etc. An opposition party is not a party that supports these things, an opposition party would be one that says "hey rather than letting X company corner the market and have a de facto monopoly, we break them up so they have less control", or "hey instead of invading another country militarily, we offer humanitarian aid instead", or "hey if we're going to rework the economy to have more freedom and respect for the consumer, instead of socializing production of resources we adopt more competition-oriented free-market regulations". The thing is, this isn't what any opposition party is doing.
(I'll also admit that I was a fool for thinking that big tech hate by the right was ever going to lead stronger regulation of the big tech corporate empires, it's just hollow and blind hatred, all bark and literally no useful bite.)
Exactly, why would you vote for a party that is telling you how to raise your kids and what you can do in your own bedroom, i.e. why vote for the GOP, who do exactly that?
If the GOP doesn't outright restrict you, they let their corporate sponsors do it directly.
The ban is on campus networks, but the reactions I'm reading are acting like this is a ban on the campus itself.
It's not censorship (or fascism), just like if they blocked PornHub it wouldn't be censorship (or fascism).
And no, blocking PornHub on a university campus where the vast, vast majority of connected users are 18+ isn't justifiable unless it was under the grounds of security.
Or the vaping without permission inside someone else's home during a meal.
It's impressive the level of mental gymnastics to jump around both and call the act of kicking them out excessive seeing as both are sufficient justification on their own, let alone together.