charonn0

No. "Intentionally", "willfully", or "knowingly" are prerequisite states of mind for crimes defined by the CFAA.

How long before an agent steals their human tester's nude photos and extorts them for the answer key?

It seems like bug hunting might be the one area where AI is actually making the world a better place.

Count Binface

I did not expect this to be a real person. Is he with the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid party?

The "More" button changes to a "Stop" button when clicked.

And run the whole thing in DOSBox.

Seems like a case for HTTP 451 (Unavailable for Legal Reasons) rather than 404.

The company involved here is apparently based in Washington, DC, which has a "Ban the Box" ordinance that limits employment background checks for most kinds of jobs. And apparently DC's version of the law is particularly strict.

I would blame the email over Outlook.

For some reason it fails to generate anything for me most of the time.

https://halupedia.com/shortest-hose-in-the-world [fail]

https://halupedia.com/new-england-rock-worm [fail]

https://halupedia.com/chronic-anaspepsis [fail]

https://halupedia.com/ancient-egyptian-algebra [OK]

OTOH, a free trip to the depot and back is actually more than you'd get from a traditional taxi service under the same circumstances.

I'm the opposite: I'll take a centralized, strongly-typed registry over 'stringly' typed dotfiles scattered across the entire filesystem.

Rather, I suspect viral copyleft is why this lawyer is focusing on the the GPL. It's the only(?) FOSS license that can force a proprietary codebase into the open.

It is totally infeasible for me to check every single GPL project on every code hosting platform to see if the code Claude etc produced is too similar.

I would say that choosing a tool that makes it infeasible doesn't actually excuse you from doing it.

Is "learning" the correct term?

Or is it "plagiarism"?

They probably focused on the GPL because of its viral copyleft features.

Yeah, I thought the main character was a little too insistent about... repopulating. On the other hand, if we're feeling generous we might say the author was intentionally confronting the reader with what is only implied by the Biblical counterpart.

If you enjoy this story, you might enjoy the short unpublished novel, "The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect"[1] by Roger Williams. A story where 1990's humans invent a 3-laws-compliant super AI that accidentally "ascends" humanity. We become as gods, or the Q Continuum, but remain a grievously savage child race. Not to spoil it, but the ending also has a broadly similar shape to The Last Question.

I say you might enjoy it, because this story has graphic depictions of deviant sex and gruesome violence, to a disturbing degree at points. But I argue that it's not gratuitous; it's the logical conclusion of Rule 34 being applied to the situation. Even so, you don't want to read this if you are sensitive to themes like rape, murder, incest or abuse.

[1] https://archive.org/download/prime_intellect/prime_intellect...

they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.

This could be describing an internet argument where both parties google for expert articles that seem to support their point of view without really understanding anything about the subject.

I find that 99% of ads are blocked simply by disabling Javascript. Does that suggest that disabling Javascript is unethical? Or does it suggest that those blocked advertisements were over-stepping the bounds of the implicit contract?

Hugged to death?

https://web.archive.org/web/20260329052632/https://gladeart....

That's a serious accusation. Can you elaborate? What is the name of the company? Why does the Wikimedia Foundation claim ownership? And if you're referring to the Wikimedia Foundation, then what do you mean by "shareholders"?

I don't think regulations are the legal restrictions people are referring to, but rather private lawsuits.

Maybe the OS could ship with preconfigured age-range based usergroups. When you add a new user you could simply add them to the appropriate usergroup.

> useradd -G under13usergroup username

Skimming the actual text of the law[1], I don't see anything particularly objectionable. Basically it requires a toggle when creating/editing a local user account that signals "this user is/is not a child". Applications could then tailor their content for child/not child audiences.

Which isn't to suggest that it's a good law, just not really "age verification".

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

I can't think of any other differentiating features in Gmail. Ads in my mail? Nostalgia?

Originally, the differentiating features were multi-gigabyte storage limits and the public's goodwill towards Google, Inc.

Gigabyte storage is now the norm, public goodwill for Alphabet, Inc. is minimal, and so there's nothing that really sets Gmail apart anymore.

No, I'm not proposing to change nothing, continue as is, nor do I use coded language to express my secret inner racism.

I'm saying that changing words like "blacklist" or "master" is purely performative and actually quite selfish. People do it to feel good about themselves for "helping" without actually having to do anything helpful. It's the moral equivalent of sending "thoughts and prayers".

Because changing blacklist to blocklist, master to main, etc. is a meaningless act of virtue signalling.

Pretty sure you can do it at the individual device level, in the OS's network settings.

Notably, the SFTP specification was never completed. We're working off of draft specs, and presumably these issues wouldn't have made it into a final version.