Corporate free speech is bollocks. Human rights are for human beings. Also, corporations do not have opinions, they cannot "disagree" with anything. You need a brain to have opinions. Only humans (well, animals) have brains.

I think the problem is more that cops have to do all sorts of evil things as part of enforcing capital and whatever bigotry is codified where you are, which means anyone who joins is either too stupid to notice, or too evil to care,

Most of the stuff "AI" is heavily marketed for is stuff that it cannot actually do properly, but this seems like an area where it can actually be useful. Things like textures in a game are not the focus of the creative effort, they mostly don't really need to express human creativity, they just need to be there and to be good enough. You don't normally gaze at a wall hoping it will inspire you or make you feel something whilst playing a game.

That's projecting human motivations which have developed due to the way humans evolved onto an intelligence of unknown nature.

So, nobody has the faintest idea how to actually go about building a super-intelligent AI. (Unless some very clever people are keeping a very big secret somewhere.) So what's the ban supposed to apply to? And if and when people do figure out something, banning it in a few countries isn't going to help.

This is a case of good use of BMI, i.e. when doing statistics. BMI gets a bad reputation because of people applying it to individual cases, which is not what it's for.

There's always going to be a systemic problem so long as we have capitalism, because capitalism relies upon maintaining a systemic problem, specifically, workers being paid less than the value of their labour, which is, on average, where profits come from..

As if Japan is the only country to have ever attacked other countries. (BTW, If you want to paint the country from nearly a century ago in a bad light, something like the civilians of Nanjing would be a better choice.) Anyway, any "AI" worthy of the term or of great importance to the world shouldn't have to rape the whole internet before it can work properly and then fail to operate within any legal or ethical codes, it should be able to learn just from inputs from consenting sources and have some idea about things it should do and things it shouldn't do.

I suggest encrypting anything stored in cloud systems using some key which is either based on a thoroughly memorised passphrase or stored in several different drives in multiple physical locations.

But note that this is not a solution for people with less technical knowledge than slashdotters, and these people deserve their privacy too. It is a solution to personal problems, but not a solution to this social problem.

Every time this sort of thing happens, the headline should be "Amazon vandalises the property of their customers, police and public authorities will do nothing".

All my charging options are USB-A, bought when micro-USB was going to be the long-term standard, or what desktops have loads to spare of. The bundled C to C cables are useless to me.

Conventional algorithms aren't proven secure either. They've just been around for a lot longer with no successful breakages, which increases confidence in them. In some cases you can use hash-based signature algorithms which rely only on the irreversibility of their hash functions. SLH-DSA produces long signatures and signing is very slow, but for firmware signatures in many cases neither of these will be problems.

If your system is protected from both conventional and quantum computers, but nobody can make capable quantum computers, then your system is still protected.

Surely they can be prosecuted for blackmailing people who want to make code on Android phones for that $25 in at least a few jurisdictions?

It's all very well to observe that it's possible to use a smartphone healthily, but when the majority of users fail to do this in practice, it's not particularly relevant when discussing the social problems which result from this.