So financial power and threats should give immunity to the rule of law of sovereign nations? What a terrible take. Also it's cute that you seem to think Apple doesn't have much to lose by doing that.

Thanks. You are not answering my question. I am asking for the motivation behind what you formulate as "it just is". Nothing just is, everything has a reason. I am curious about these reasons. I don't think it falls under "matter of taste" either. "Has to be gui" seems like a very artificial constraint to impose on oneself, I am certain that OP sees it differently, I would just like to understand their motivation because currently they escape my understanding.

I'm curious, why is it so important? I like GUIs for certain things (email, web browsing) but not for others (batch file manipulation, batch image manipulation). Why is it so important to you to have gui for everything? I mean for some cases a GUI is clearly an inferior solution from my perspective.

For a certain definition of "should", sure. History shows that the electorate prefers fascism over "inaction" which is not actually inaction but a slow-cooking to poverty and misery.

But that also defines the population, even if in indirect ways: Trump is doing what he said he would do. People knowingly voted for the things they are now disapproving. Against the warnings of the other part of the population, who quite literally told them so. That's how stupid these people are.

Now let's be clear, the US might be ahead but does not have a monopoly on stupidity, this is all coming to Europe too. And let's also be clear that this is all only made possible by the corruption, and I include moral corruption in that, of the alternative parties. Biden and Harris didn't offer or advertise anything inspiring. Nobody seriously believes that Harris as president would have brought society back to a point where you can make a decent living with any full-time job, at least enough to pay rent, food, bills and education.

Yes and you are free to live in a world where AI companies accelerate global warming and generalised surveillance. If you don't like it, just make your own world without these issues. Is this really how stupid the libertarian discourse is in 2025? Or is there more depth to it? Right now I only see the stupid part.

Absolutely, and by the way Docker runs as root by default.

That is only true if you define "attack" in an absurdly narrow way. Look at the history of CIA operations, in particular in Latin America.

Of course we could also talk about these extra judicial drone killings in Pakistan. Or about that proxy war in Palestine and Israel. Or about the recent strikes in Iran. Or about the recent attacks of Venezuelan boats. I'm sure you will find many more examples yourself.

Alright so I don't know much about the US legal system. Imagine my lawyer uses genAI, gets caught for "hallucinations" and I lose the case. Can I then sue my lawyer for that? How likely is it that some other lawyer accepts to represent me in that case?

Because it's not the same.

Humans make honest mistakes all the time, we fix them and move on, and we give benefit of the doubt. If we can prove that the mistake isn't an honest one, then it's different, but you haven't mentioned anything (here or below) that suggests otherwise in the case you mention.

Using generative AI is making a conscious decision to use a technology that makes shit up. There should be no tolerance for that.

I don't know which question you are answering but it's not the one I asked.

Does every computer need to be managed though? Isn't there value in saying, for some subset of users, "you're using Linux, you're on your own for security updates and you're responsible for your machine's security"? Possibly with some guidelines and recommendations.

Or perhaps a more interesting question: where is the evidence that enterprise-level management of PCs saves more money than it costs?

I have been conducting research on combinatorial optimisation for more than two decades. What you say is not true.

First, genetic algorithms are not a good approach for solving the TSP. If you want an exact solution then the best methods are based on branch and cut, for example Concorde. It can solve surprisingly large instances. If you want something close enough, this particular implementation of the Lin-Kernighan heuristic works surprisingly well and way faster than any genetic algorithm.

Second, and way more importantly, it is a fallacy that LLMs can "take into account even more variables and get closer". In fact, optimisation is one of the fields that have not been impacted in any game-changing capacity by the LLM developments of the past few years. An LLM might get you a decent solution for a small instance of a difficult problem, if you're lucky. The solution might even satisfy all the stated constraints, if you're very lucky. It will not scale well when input size increases.

Sometimes it's about the journey. And sometimes it's about a destination that is not the one you see. Have you considered that this person enjoyed the whole process, and enjoys sharing their findings?

Note: this reply is for the post above your, my bad