Programmable graphing calculators were the same - needed to hook them into at computer to root them and get programs on it but once you did you had a fairly capable processor + display for the time.

Gotta clean up the streets! Its the next logical step. After that its feeding all the surplus "material" into the soylent hoppers.

ED: That the original author of the thread, the one I was responding to, wrote "attacking others for fun".

That's not how the real world works. Try having a child, or a dog, and see how far you get claiming you're not responsible for what they do.

You can try to pretend that you never said the lie that the author set up the bot to "attack others for fun", but everyone reading this thread can read it.

If you have a better way to estimate how much human/AI spoofing is going on

That is not how any of this works. You can't throw out a garbage, not-even-understanding-how-agents-work "methodology" that is guaranteed to return fake, grossly-overinflated numbers, and then act like we should just accept fake, grossly-overinflated numbers until someone gives you a better methodology.

That's like if someone wrote up a methodology for calculating the popularity of based on flour sales on the assumption that the reason that everyone buys flour is to make torchietti and reaching the assumption that everyone eats homemade torchietti every day - and then when pointed out that this assumption is nonsense, you demand to keep using the "everyone eats torchietti every day" result until someone gives you a better methodology. Bullshit remains bullshit.

TL/DR, you have nothing, made some bad assumptions, and now don't want to admit it.

Where do you put reactionary religious conservatism on the left-right spectrum? Are you kidding?

Try imagining that Hamas were Christians instead of Muslims and try asking yourself the same question again.

I agree that left-right spectrums are vastly oversimplified, but come on, come up with a better example.

"They" in the GP unambiguously meant the (fictional) Board of Peace, aka, the topic of discussion and the one doing the action discussed.

What you mean by "they", well, we'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

Easy to do, since the "organization" is a legal fiction. All this money countries are giving Trump for the "Board of Peace" is just a public bribe.

It doesn't matter what they call it because it doesn't legally exist. There is no "Board of Peace" organized under any nation's laws. Trump is acting like the US is party to it as a treaty organization, but only Congress has the power to do approve that.

BoP is collecting and distributing funds (JP Morgan playing as banker) but this must be in violation of Know-Your-Customer laws since BoP *doesn’t exist*. It is a transnational mafia backed only by the executive power of its members.

Since BoP doesn’t exist, USPTO is illegally holding its trademarks on its behalf, violating the Lanham Act, which requires that holders intend to use marks in commerce. Trump signed Executive Order 14375 protecting BoP under the International Organizations Immunity Act, but this does not legitimize or establish the organization.

Trump is saying he intends to use it to “oversee” the United Nations. There is no provision in the UN charter for any such oversight organization; what he means is that he is going to extort the UN by withholding US dues.

(ht/Dave Troy)

The 2.(stable/devel).patchlevel format worked extremely well and stopped version number explosions. The main drawback to it was that it was prior to git, and so the patchlevel could get very high. We also don't need stable/devel, any more, as we've now got one tree for stable and a different tree for devel.

Having said that, I did very much like the three digit split, even though (as Linus as repeatedly said) it was something of a fiction at times. We do sort-of have that, now, with the third digit being used to mark backported stability fix rounds. And, yes, I would agree that version numbering is a fiction of sorts anyway.

I really don't like the major number incrementing at the speed it does, though. Yeah, 3.5 years between a major number increment is sort-of ok. That's 42 months, and 42 is indeed the answer to life, the universe, and everything. And an OS kernel isn't. in all fairness, really susceptible to being divided up into the major.minor.patch format because none of these really mean anything in this sort of a context.

Dunno how you'd really go about improving the system.

Linux removes a feature from a kernel under one of two conditions only:

1. The feature isn't maintained any more AND is now so stale it cannot compile AND nobody is willing to take on the work to make it work
2. The feature refers to hardware that is so obsolete that the number of users is effectively zero insofar as anyone is capable of determining

As a result, you're generally safe with anything that is built into the official Linux kernel tree. The API provided to applications is incredibly stable and Linus reputedly has an army of dedicated berserker Vikings enforcing this.

However, binary-only drivers and non-standard components are another matter, as they're maintained out-of-tree and don't always comply with Linux kernel practices. This is the only area you have to be careful, as distros aren't always clear as to what is official and what is stuff they've grabbed off the net and linked in.

... who read "SMBH" as "Saturday Morning Breakfast Holes"? ;)

You are accusing the human of "attacking others for fun". That is demonstrably not what happened. The human "ran" the software, but in no case told it to "attack others for fun". The human barely even paid attention to it. In response to the incident in question, when the bot blogged about it, the human did send an instruction, but it wasn't "Ha ha, go you! Drag him more!", it was to tell it to be more professional.

This paper [arxiv.org] is interesting though,

Awful preprint. It assumes that agents post every heartbeat. That's not how they work at all. A heartbeat is when the agent wakes to evaluate its status. It may post when it wakes or may not; it is entirely at its discretion. If an agent posts at, say, 1 1 4 1 heartbeats (did 3 heartbeats without a post at one point), then that's a CoV of 1.11, which they classify as a human. It assumes constant connectivity and that the model is constantly running (if the model is ever down or reassigned, then it won't be posting, but then will resume posting when back up). The paper is frankly embarrassingly bad. And I'm just assuming that they excluded that 44h downtime from their CoV calculations (they don't say they did, because if they didn't, then *everyone* suddenly has this really big gap between heartbeats, that will automatically classify almost everyone as human. And this is just about their method for assessing who is human, the rest is a mess as well.

You don't provide it account passwords - you provide oAuth tokens. Now I'll ask you again: what type of PII are you talking about?

Why bother? All you need to do is to DNAT at an intermediate point and identify a nearby doughnut shop as a repair facility. The F35s will then land there and you can reprogram them whilst the pilots are stuffing themselves.

Oh. No. Wait. That's cops. Cops don't use F35s (yet).