Sounds like you're not defending Access so much as ODBC.

It's mighty convenient for you that your claim makes it impossible for you to provide evidence of this outrageous claim.

... is not let AI get into the hands of people like Bill Gates. That, however, is impossible.

Yeah, you're not understanding what I'm saying: Azure doesn't just host Linux VMs, significant parts of the infrastructure are built on Linux. Microsoft has just as much (if not more) to lose from a resurgent SCO lawsuit than anyone, they aren't going to be the ones rocking this boat.

One could argue that no one is doing it in six days without a shit ton of automation support. Some cherubim in ops saved eons when he wrote createstar.pl and it's still running in production today (though it looks like creategalaxy.pl stopped executing some time ago and hasn't been restarted and/or patched yet).

This was a reasonable screed two decades ago (and probably at least somewhat factual) but today Microsoft is one of the world's largest users of Linux. It has no current motivation to harm Linux and every reason to defend it.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.wisc.edu%2F2025%2F0...

And DARPA has a whole program for it:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.darpa.mil%2Fresearch...

I would imagine they decay into something else in like 10e-15 seconds.

The problem with the above is that you are mistaking "yourself" for "the market."

"Everyone isn't doing what I want them to, obviously 'the market' is broken."

This kills me. Instead of a "simple" (I realize that e.g. a google search is not all that simple) database query, we have an LLM that does the query for you, then analyzes it, and redisplays the output (making it thousands of times more computationally expensive) but now you are suggesting that the chatbot control a VM or similar and perform the steps as if it were a human, adding millions of times more overhead. It's mind boggling.

Conspiracy theory: the "anyone" doing the promoting is already affected by the product they're hawking and it's trying to spread.

I assure you that the existence of these things does not mean you want to have to deal with actually exercising your rights under them, and that you're stupid if you don't go over the exact vehicle you're buying before signing anything. And that going-over includes "driving" the thing.

You have to be talking about Europe or something, because most people buying new cars in the US are buying off the lot. Dealers order vehicles with option packages most likely to appeal to a broad set of customers or designed to maximize their sales. Some people do order the exact vehicle they want, of course, but they're the minority.

Can we finally know whether or not there is beer on the sun?!

"At least as safe as a (prudent) human" seems like a reasonable standard to shoot for as a floor, presuming the vendor is willing to accept liability when their "as good as a human" system is at fault in an accident.