If people really want Linux to be a viable alternative to Windows, run by a majority of the general public, it has to be possible to sell closed-source software that runs on it (where "it" means a broad range of different distros).
Yes, that means less freedom concerning that particular software. But without it, the platform is a tiny niche that's easily run over by the hardware OEMs.
Companies don't support Linux because it's not widespread enough so it can't outweigh the costs. They don't give a rat's ass for the market's resentfulness or lack thereof. The Linux market was basically not a real market before because their market share was simply too small.
There are plenty of products made for resentful markets and as long as they keep being profitable they don't care.
It is inconcievably stupid that github, run by a massive tech company like Microsoft, has not migrated to ipv6. They're single-handedly holding back adoption.
There may indeed be some tracking that MS does via IPv4, but it's not a good way to do it.
I suspect any such tracking is essentially just some cruft that snuck in (either their own or legislative) in the early 2000s, and nobody thinks it's their problem to make go away.
That said, that IPv4 is a poor way to do tracking doesn't guarantee there's no manager demanding it: any corporation eventually gets someone with no technical knowledge demanding bad solutions.
This is a problem with basically all "spare power" schemes: paying for the grid hookup and land on which you situate your thing isn't free, as well as the interest rate cost of capital; so the lower the duty cycle the less economic it is.
The newer .msix apps are supposed to be able to handle this, and WinUI3 is supposed to come with a package-dependency that uses the package system to automatically make sure you have the 100+MB library up to date. However, this is the new cool system that nobody uses and doesn't help ordinary devs. They should just ship it in the OS.
And has lots of interesting bugs to explore, depending if the application uses only C++, only C#, a mixture of both, is packaged or expanded, ships the language runtimes along the MSIX, or depends on the store for dependencies,...
Yet another opportunity to submit a few issues on the repos.
You can easily get an estimate of the number of buildings and especially vehicles, which tell you two important things. Not to mention that as a matter of course the first thing to do is photograph everything that looks like a piece of military equipment, which has been a purpose of satellite photography from the beginning.
Various kinds of countries get paranoid about letting people have maps or accurate geographic data. This makes very little difference militarily but causes real inconvenience for the locals.
Besides, nobody wages wars for labour exploitation any more. It's all about what's under the ground.
That said, my actual experience of processing earth observation satellite images was with scientific data, not spy sats, and in any case it was just over 20 years ago and may be out of date.
What I was working with, any given satellite image capture was a line rather than a rectangle, basically a rolling shutter effect but on a planetary scale and taking ~90 minutes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_broom_scanner
That famous Bible verse, "there is nothing new under the sun", comes to mind. Even most of the problems with computers and computer systems - especially distributed ones - and information processing, and all problems at the interface layer between those systems and people, are something we've already been dealing with for hundreds of years. For many of those we even developed effective solutions, that most people don't realize exist.
It takes a little frame shift to see this: one has to realize that bureaucracy is a computing system, built on a runtime made of people instead of silicon, storing data on forms and documents, invoking procedure calls through paper shuffling, executing programs written in legalese, as rules and procedures and laws.
Accountability shifting? "The program won't let me do that" is just a new, more intense flavor of "this is the company/government policy". The underlying goals remain the same - building a reliable system from unreliable parts, a system to realize some goals - while maintaining control of and visibility into it, all without having to personally micromanage every aspect. Introductions of computers into bureaucracy didn't change its fundamental nature; making process more robust and reducing endpoint variation (i.e. individual autonomy of the workers) just makes it scale better.
Hell, even AI - at least at this point[0] - isn't really a new thing either. Once you allow yourself to anthropomorphize LLMs a bit and realize they are effectively "People on a Chip", it becomes clear what their role in a computing system is, and that we already have experience dealing with their flaky, unreliable nature.
And from that perspective, it's clear as day that company blaming AI for a fuckup is just the most recent flavor of shifting blame to a subcontractor.
--
[0] - Things will meaningfully change if and when we get to the point of AIs being given moral or legal status as people. Though in all honesty, this wouldn't be a completely new situation either - more like a new take on social and political issues humanity has been dealing with ever since first two ancient tribes found themselves contesting the same piece of land.
I don't see how this can happen, tbh. Like, the chair is just one vote, and the regional Feds have almost a majority. Presumably, whoever gets the job will say they'll reduce interest rates, but I don't see how they can actually accomplish this without getting the rest of the Fed on board.
Because it's important to recognize sometimes when someone you disagree with is right about something, I would like to note that Musk sacking most of the Twitter staff has not made the site unable to stay up. (The site has got worse for other reasons)
> It is however fraud on the part of the travel company to advertise something that doesn't exist
Just here to point out that from a legal perspective, fraud is deliberate deception.
In this case a tourist agency outsourced the creation of their marketing material to a company who used AI to produce it, with hallucinations. From the article it doesn't look like either of the two companies advertised the details knowing they're wrong, or had the intent to deceive.
Posting wrong details on a blog out of carelessness and without deliberate ill intention is not fraud more than using a wrong definition of fraud is fraud.
> Posting wrong details on a blog out of carelessness and without deliberate ill intention is not fraud more than using a wrong definition of fraud is fraud.
There's a concept of "constructive fraud", for cases where there was no deliberate intent to deceive, but the degree of negligence was so great that the fraudlent-looking outcome can just be considered fraud.
> To omit that disclaimer, the author needs to take responsibility for fact checking anything they post.
> Skipping that step, or leaving out the disclaimer, is not carelessness, it is willful misrepresentation.
Couldn't help but notice you gave some very convincing legal advice without any disclaimer that you are not a lawyer, a judge, or an expert on Australian law. Your own litmus test characterizes you as a fraudster. The other mandatory components of fraud (knowledge, intention, damages) don't even apply, you said so.
Australian law isn't at all weird about this. Their definition (simplified) pivots on intentional deception, to obtain gains or to cause loss to others, knowing the outcome.
There has to be a clause for "willful disregard for the truth", no? Having your lying machine come up with plausible lies for you and publishing them without verification is no better than coming up with the lies yourself. What really protects them from fraud accusations is that these blog posts were just content marketing, they weren't making money off of them directly.
Even for civil law where the bar for the evidence is lower, it's hard to make a case that someone who posted wrong details on a free blog and didn't make money off of it should cover the damages you incurred by traveling based on the advice alone. Not making any reasonable effort to fact check cuts both ways.
This is a matter of contract law between the two companies, but the people who randomly read an internet blog, took everything for granted, and more importantly didn't use that travel agency's services can't really claim fraud.
Just being wrong or making mistakes isn't fraud. Otherwise 99% of people saying something on the internet would be on the hook for damages again and again.
Seems like closer to fraud on behalf of the marketing company they outsourced to.
I doubt they commissioned articles on things that don't exist. If you use AI to perform a task that someone has asked you to do, it should be your responsibility to ensure that it has actually done that thing properly.
The consequences for wrong ai need to be a lot higher if we want to limit slop. Of course, there’s space for llms and their hallucinations to contribute meaningful things, but we need at least a screaming all caps disclaimer on content that looks like it could be human-generated but wasn’t (and absent that disclaimer or if the disclaimer was insufficiently prominent, false statements are treated as deliberate fraud)
If people really want Linux to be a viable alternative to Windows, run by a majority of the general public, it has to be possible to sell closed-source software that runs on it (where "it" means a broad range of different distros).
Yes, that means less freedom concerning that particular software. But without it, the platform is a tiny niche that's easily run over by the hardware OEMs.
reply