> MS wants everyone to run Copilot on their shiny new data centre, so they can collect the data on the way.
MS doesn't care where your data is, they're happy to go digging through your C drive to collect/mine whatever they want, assuming you can avoid all the dark patterns they use to push you to save everything on OneDrive anyway and they'll record all your interactions with any other AI using Recall
Video games have driven the need for hardware more than office work. Sadly games are already being scaled back and more time is being spent on optimization instead of content since consumers can't be expected to have the kind of RAM available they normally would and everyone will be forced to make do with whatever RAM they have for a long time.
I don't doubt that there will be specialized chips that make AI easier, but they'll be more expensive than the graphics cards sold to consumers which means that a lot of companies will just go with graphics cards, either because the extra speed of specialized chips won't be worth the cost, or will they'll be flat out too expensive and priced for the small number of massive spenders who'll shell out insane amounts of money for any/every advantage (whatever they think that means) they can get over everyone else.
Even collecting and sending all that data to the cloud is going to drain battery life. I'd really rather my devices only do what I ask them to than have AI running the background all the time trying to be helpful or just silently collecting data.
Windows is going more and more into AI and embedding it into the core of the OS as much as it can. It’s not “an app”, even if that was true now it wouldn't be true for very long. The strategy is well communicated.
Unfortunately still loads of hurdles for most people.
AAA Games with anti-cheat that don't support Linux.
Video editing (DaVinci Resolve exists but is a pain to get up and running on many distros, KDenLive/OpenShot don't really cut it for most)
Adobe Suite (Photoshop/Lightroom specifically, and Premiere for Video Editing) - would like to see Affinity support Linux but hasn't happened so far. GIMP and DarkTable aren't really substitutions unless you pour a lot of time into them.
Tried moving to Linux on my laptop this past month, made it a month before a reinstall of Windows 11. Had issues with WiFi chip (managed to fix but had to edit config files deep in the system, not ideal), Fedora with LUKS encryption after a kernel update the keyboard wouldn't work to input the encryption key, no Windows Hello-like support (face ID). Had the most success with EndeavourOS but running Arch is a chore for most.
It's getting there, best it's ever been, but there's still hurdles.
> AAA Games with anti-cheat that don't support Linux.
I really don't understand people that want to play games so badly that they are willing to install a literal rootkit on their devices. I can understand if you're a pro gamer but it feels stupid to do it otherwise.
According to my friends, Arc Raders works well on linux. So it's very much, just a small selection of AAA games, so they can run anti-cheat, that probably doesn't even work. Can you name a triple a you want to play, that proton says is incompatible?
Gimp isn't a solution, sure but it works for what I need. Darktable does way more than I've ever wanted, so I can forgive it for the one time it crashed. Inkscape and blender both exceed my needs as well.
And Adobe is so user hostile, that I feel I need to call you a mean name to prove how I feel.... dummy!
Yes, I already feel bad, and I'm sorry. But trolling aside, listing applications that treat users like shit, aren't reasons to stay on the platform that also treats you like shit.
I get it, sometimes, being treated like shit is worth it because it's easier now that you're used to being disrespected. But an aversion to the effort it'd take for you to climb the learning curve of something different, isn't valid reason to help the disrespectful trash companies making the world worse, recruit more people for them to treat like trash.
Just because you use it, doesn't make it worth recommending.
I don't really PC game anymore, use my Xbox or a few older games my laptop's iGPU can handle, not at the moment anyway. Battlefield 6 is a big one recently that if I had a gaming PC set-up I'd probably want to play.
I know Adobe are... c-words, but their software is industry standard for a reason.
> Battlefield 6 is a big one recently that if I had a gaming PC set-up I'd probably want to play.
We definitely play very different games, I wouldn't touch it if you paid me. So I'm sure we both have a bit of sample bias in our expected rates of linux compatibility. Especially since EA is another company like Adobe. Also, the internet seems to think they have a cheating problem. I wonder how bad it really is, and if it's worth the cost of the anti-cheat.
They're industry standard because they were first. Not necessarily because they were better. They do have a feature set that's near impossible to beat, not even I can pretend like they don't. I'm just saying, respect and fairness is more important to me, than content aware fill ever will be.
> If you look it up, the most gun crimes occur in Democrat-run gun-grabber areas that have the most gun laws.
Highly populated areas tend to be Democrat-run. People commit crimes so places with more people = more crimes. More gun crimes cause people to push for more gun laws. Gun laws limited to cities (or even states) have limited impact when it's trivial to get guns from neighboring areas without those laws. Gun laws with limited impact can still be helpful.
It's not as if we don't know for a fact that legislation works (since it works for many many other counties) but a patchwork system of laws that only applies to some areas and not others is bound to perform worse than federal systems. Even federal systems need to be smart and actually managed and enforced correctly to work well.
> Disarming people is an unacceptable solution for many reasons.
Disarming people is an acceptable solution for many reasons. We already do it to all kinds of people in many circumstances. It's just a question of when/how much is appropriate for which circumstances.
> The best solution to gun crime is to arm the law-abiding.
Only if you're a gun/ammo manufacturer. Real world evidence has shown over and over that the best solution is laws placing legal regulations on firearms. We can point to nation after nation whose gun problems are drastically lower than ours because of the laws they enacted.
On the other hand, there exists only fantasy world evidence that giving every man woman and child a gun would solve the problem. Arguably it's already been tried in the US and the result was complete failure.
>Highly populated areas tend to be Democrat-run. People commit crimes so places with more people = more crimes. More gun crimes cause people to push for more gun laws.
Are you suggesting that there are no red cities? The only sense in which this is true is that more laws = more crimes lol.
>It's not as if we don't know for a fact that legislation works (since it works for many many other counties) but a patchwork system of laws that only applies to some areas and not others is bound to perform worse than federal systems. Even federal systems need to be smart and actually managed and enforced correctly to work well.
The federal gun laws are dumb and unconstitutional. I could be on board with disarming children, violent criminals, and nutcases. Anyone else should be able to own a gun if they want to, through a convenient process. That is to say, the current federal laws are at the limit of where I want them to be, if not beyond.
I don't care about other countries. They let themselves be disarmed, and they will ultimately suffer tyranny as a result.
>On the other hand, there exists only fantasy world evidence that giving every man woman and child a gun would solve the problem. Arguably it's already been tried in the US and the result was complete failure.
It's a fact that guns curb certain kinds of crime. The mere possibility that a thug might not survive an encounter with granny means he will think long and hard before making a move on her. The fact that normal people might lose their shit keeps politicians in line. Give up your rights, and evil will follow.
> They let themselves be disarmed, and they will ultimately suffer tyranny as a result.
There's plenty of tyranny in the USA today and guns have done nothing to stop it. There are countless videos on youtube right now of government tyranny in America, how many videos have you seen of tyranny by the State being stopped because someone pulled out a gun or opened fire?
I'm not saying that rhetorically, if you've got a bunch of youtube videos of people shooting police or politicians engaged in tyranny which successfully stopped that tyranny from taking place please respond with links. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing them.
> The mere possibility that a thug might not survive an encounter with granny means he will think long and hard
This is demonstrably false. Everywhere in the US there is a possibility that grannies can have a gun, but nowhere, even the places where there is concealed carry and a large number of gun owners, has crime been stopped as a result. Muggings still happen. Beatings still happen. Rapes still happen. Thugs don't "think long and hard" period. Guns don't make a difference. Gang members in particular aren't scared of guns. They have guns too. They've been shot, or been shot at, many times. They've watched their friends be killed by gunfire. None of that stops them.
> The fact that normal people might lose their shit keeps politicians in line.
Where do you live where your politicians are kept in line at all, or by anything except maybe fear of not being reelected? Again, there are countless examples of politicians out of line all over this country. The number of guns/gun owners has zero impact on government corruption. It's everywhere.
> Give up your rights, and evil will follow.
I, like most Americans, don't want to abolish the 2nd amendment, but like with all of our rights, there are reasonable restrictions and limits that can be placed on it which would still allow people to defend their homes and hunt and shoot while still bringing gun deaths closer to what we see in other counties.
>There's plenty of tyranny in the USA today and guns have done nothing to stop it.
Guns stop crime which is a form of tyranny. As for government tyranny, you are not going to be able to fight a heavily armed tyrant without guns. We didn't win independence from the British via debate. Guns are a factor in reigning in deranged politicians. That is why they want to disarm everyone.
>This is demonstrably false. Everywhere in the US there is a possibility that grannies can have a gun, but nowhere, even the places where there is concealed carry and a large number of gun owners, has crime been stopped as a result.
Crime has been reduced by gun ownership.
>Thugs don't "think long and hard" period. Guns don't make a difference. Gang members in particular aren't scared of guns. They have guns too. They've been shot, or been shot at, many times. They've watched their friends be killed by gunfire. None of that stops them.
They do fear guns. They have guns because they are effective for self-defense, even for criminals. Hard-boiled criminals fear guns. Even if you find some that are so calloused and/or stupid that they don't fear guns, the guns will protect you from those criminals anyway. The gun does not care what its target thinks of it.
>Where do you live where your politicians are kept in line at all, or by anything except maybe fear of not being reelected?
Like I said, it is a factor. The people who want to take our guns are heavily guarded by men with guns. Take the hint.
>I, like most Americans, don't want to abolish the 2nd amendment, but like with all of our rights, there are reasonable restrictions and limits that can be placed on it which would still allow people to defend their homes and hunt and shoot while still bringing gun deaths closer to what we see in other counties.
We already have background checks on every legal gun purchase and extra unconstitutional laws restricting many types of firearms. There is a de-facto and illegal national gun registry.
For all the benefits we get from government, it remains the biggest domestic menace to all of us and we must take steps to not allow ourselves to be defenseless against the state. How do you think genocides happen? The second amendment is not for hunting, or for warding off low-level thugs, though it might be useful for those purposes. It is there to give normal people a real chance to reign in evil in government. A standing professional army would not win against a well-armed majority standing up for their own rights. Even if they did win, it would be a Pyrrhic victory.
Assuming that the number is real, 12 children dying every day from guns is the opposite of VERY low. It's insane. What is your limit? How many child corpses do you think need to be put into the ground every day before the government should pass the kind of laws most Americans are asking them to?
Unlike how most Americans want something done about guns, they don't want to be tracked. There is a lot of opposition to it once people are made aware of the issue. Censorship is pretty unpopular too, although while the majority tends to oppose it, it's far more popular with people in the US than is should be.
>How many child corpses do you think need to be put into the ground every day before the government should pass the kind of laws most Americans are asking them to?
There are already plenty of gun laws. "Most Americans" are only in favor of more laws to the extent they don't understand what is already in place, except for those that want a blanket ban on guns. There are many millions of legal gun owners in the US, and you should be thankful for that.
Out of many millions of people, 12 per day is a rounding error. You'd probably save more lives by launching a campaign telling kids to tie their shoes or lay off the soda, for real. How many bodies are worth our freedom? Millions die in wars, for far worse reasons than a few hundred as a natural consequence of being free. It is very hard to quantify the benefits of owning a gun because only crimes are reported.
Also, what gun grabbers don't understand (or choose to ignore) is that the people who are murdered by their peers with a gun could just as easily be murdered with a knife, or a brick. They might not be able to do it so quick, but a deranged person can go John Wick on your ass with a sharpened pencil. If you walk alone without a gun, you also have no way to defend yourself against a gang of several thugs. But with a gun, even grandma has a fighting chance of escaping nearly any crime.
> Out of many millions of people, 12 per day is a rounding error. You'd probably save more lives by launching a campaign telling kids to tie their shoes or lay off the soda, for real.
If I told you that I kidnapped 12 kids every single day and fed them into a woodchipper would that be acceptable to you because it's "just a rounding error" or because "You'd save more lives telling kids to tie their shoes than by stopping me"? Any number of children I threw into that woodchipper would be an unacceptable number of children and of course actions should be taken to stop or at the very least reduce those deaths. It's no different with gun deaths.
> Also, what gun grabbers don't understand (or choose to ignore) is that the people who are murdered by their peers with a gun could just as easily be murdered with a knife, or a brick.
Once again, the facts don't support your argument. We know that mass-stabbers don't kill as many people as mass-shooters. It's obvious why that is, you even said it yourself: Sharpened pencils and bricks are slow and far less effective at killing than guns. There's a reason why the militaries of the world arm their troops with guns and not just bricks and knives. People with bricks and sharpened pencils (which become very hard to hold on to while covered in blood by the way) are far easier to disarm safely. It is much much harder to kill with those everyday objects than with guns.
Obviously psychopaths will still find ways of killing people. Keeping the most deadly weapons out of their hands, or making it more difficult for them to get those weapons will reduce the number of deaths they can inflict on us which is something everyone should want.
>If I told you that I kidnapped 12 kids every single day and fed them into a woodchipper would that be acceptable to you
In all aspects of life, risk is involved. Would you ban cars because some children are hurt by them? Would you ban playground equipment on those grounds? Keep kids in cages because they might get kidnapped if they go to the corner store?
I can't put an exact number on it, but the potential victimhood of children and others does not invalidate our basic rights to self-governance and self-defense. Even if you could ascribe violence to guns solely (you can't really) there are many benefits to keeping the right to own guns. If safety comes at the cost of freedom, it's not worth it.
>We know that mass-stabbers don't kill as many people as mass-shooters.
The stats on such things are unreliable. Many gang shootings are registered as mass shootings.
>People with bricks and sharpened pencils (which become very hard to hold on to while covered in blood by the way) are far easier to disarm safely. It is much much harder to kill with those everyday objects than with guns.
When it comes to murder, all of these methods are effective. Guns may be the worst because they draw attention. On the other hand, would-be victims are much safer when armed.
>Obviously psychopaths will still find ways of killing people. Keeping the most deadly weapons out of their hands, or making it more difficult for them to get those weapons will reduce the number of deaths they can inflict on us which is something everyone should want.
Again, we have laws that require background checks for buying guns. I'm in favor of that, or at least not strongly opposed. But I do not in any way support banning guns for ordinary law-abiding citizens.
> Did you see the other post about this where the guys showed a Flock camera pointed at a playground, so any pedo can see when kids are there and not attended?
If it's inappropriate for any pedo to see when kids are in a park then certainly it should inappropriate when those pedos just happen to be police officers or Flock employees. The nice thing about the "everyone has access" case is that it forces the public to decide what they think is acceptable instead of making it some abstract thing that their brains aren't able to process correctly.
People will happily stand under mounted surveillance cameras all day long, but the moment they actually see someone point a camera at them they consider that a hostile action. The surveillance camera is an abstract concept they don't understand. The stranger pointing a camera in their direction is something they do understand and it makes their true feelings on strangers recording them very clear.
We might need a little bit of "everyone has access" to convince people of the truth that "no one should have access" instead.
Generally I'd agree. The threats here are larger. That said China isn't powerless to hurt you either. I haven't seen much of it happening, but in theory China could blackmail you. They can manipulate and influence you and your children through social media and advertising, even encouraging kids to harm themselves/others.
They can also fill the products they make for us with heavy metals and other poisons while building them to break draining our finances and filling our country with trash. The worst thing they could do though is just stop producing crap for us entirely since we're basically dependent on them for just about everything.
And the united states can also do those things. We’ve been fighting against the hormone-filled milk for decades, and half of the ingredients are banned by smarter countries, but more than half of our food is still imported poison.
But none of that has to do with who is surveilling me online.
> Ultimately, I don't think it matters much what he says or has said, he won't clearly say what he/they are planning, obviously.
Honestly they're pretty open about their plans. They laid most of them out in Project 2025. They just sometimes carry out those plans while also denying that they are following the playbook. Trump in particular will be surprisingly candid about what he's doing in between bouts of lies and denials.
> I wonder what our founders would think about tools like Flock.
I suspect they'd make a distinction between private individuals engaging in first amendment protected activity like public photography and corporations or the state doing the same in order to violate people's 4th amendment rights. We certainly don't have to allow for both cases.
They'd have not forced license plates to be displayed at all times to begin with, as they are a search of your papers without probable cause your vehicle is unregistered. Private ships in those days (probably the closest equivalent of something big and dangerous that could do tons of damage quickly on the public right of way) did not have required hull numbers or anything like that. Of course that doesn't totally solve the flock problem, but makes it a lot harder.
Ships then, and now, don’t really need numbers for identification. There are various unique numbers that they can and do use occasionally for specific purposes(IMO numbers and hull numbers). However, a ship’s name and home port were, and are, more than sufficient to identify a ship for legal purposes. You don’t need a registration number on a ship, and certainly wouldn’t have needed one then.
The authorities absolutely kept meticulous records of ships entry and exit from any harbour as well as what was on board, what was loaded and unloaded and frequently a list of all persons onboard.
Some flag states enforce uniqueness constraints on name and home port combinations. The US does not, but that really doesn’t matter much in the real world. There just aren’t that many conflicts.
More importantly, the founding fathers very much did not extend privacy rights to ships. Intentionally so. The very first congress passed a law in 1790 that exempted ships from the requirements of needing a warrant to be searched.
The ability to track and search ships without warrants has been an important capability of the federal government from day one.
Hell, the federal register of ships is published and always has been. I don’t know how they would have felt about private cars, but the founding fathers revealed preference is that shipping and ships are not private like your other “papers and effects” are.
Thanks for this level of detail. History is complex, which is why I tend to be skeptical of bare “what would the founders have thought about this” complaints.
The comparison to private ships doesn't quite land, IMO.
Ships
- ships big enough to do material damage would be very small in #
- ships big enough to do material damage would have a (somewhat?) professional crew
- whatever damage they could do would always be limited to tiny areas - only where water & land meet, only where substantial public or private investment had been made in docks/etc
- operators have strong financial incentive to avoid damaging ship or 3rd party property (public or private)
Cars
- in some countries the ratio of cars to people is approaching 1
- a vanishingly small portion of vehicles have professional drivers
- car operators expect to be able to operate at velocities fatal to others on nearly 100% of land in cities, excepting only land that already has a building on it, and sometimes not even that.
- car operators rarely held liable for damage to public property, injury, or death and there's strong political pressure to socialize damage and avoid realistic risk premiums
I don't love flock but IMO the only realistic way to get rid of license plates would be mandatory speed governors that keep vehicles from going more than like 15mph. I would be fine with that, but I suspect most would not. If we expect to operate cars at velocities fatal to people outside our vehicles, then there will always be pressure to have a way of identifying bad actors who put others at risk.
> I don't love flock but IMO the only realistic way to get rid of license plates would be mandatory speed governors that keep vehicles from going more than like 15mph.
I don't understand this reasoning. License plates don't stop speeding from happening. Removing license plates wouldn't prevent enforcement of speed limits either. A cop can pull over and ticket someone without a license plate just as easily as they do now.
At best they're good for a small number of situations where they help identify a car used in a crime (say a hit and run) but even then plenty of crimes are committed using cars that can't be linked back to the driver (stolen for example) or where the plates have been removed/obscured.
I’m not arguing that license plates solve the problem of the danger of cars, simply that as long as cars are dangerous to people not inside the car, there will be political pressure to have some way, however imperfect, of identifying them and their owners/operators.
Even the least sophisticated criminals know that you should buy a stolen Kia or Hyundai for ~$100 and use that to commit your crime. I suspect most of the crime these Flock cameras are catching is red-light runners and maybe hit and runs if it happens to be caught on camera.
A hit and runner hit me in front of such camera and totalled my truck. Police refused to investigate, they're not interested in using camera for such reasons nor is there much incentive that's in it for the police to do so.
Often, the same people crying about Flock will decry private arms ownership through mental gymnastics.
These very same ships you speak of that could do "tons of damage" had actual cannonry - with no registration or restrictions on ownership or purchase, either.
You can still buy and bear a cannon with no background check or registration or any of the like, FWIW. Very easy to order on the internet and have shipped straight to your door[].
You can, but be aware that an exploding cannonball (widely available in 1776) is considered a destructive device, so each shell must have an NFA stamp. Solid shot is not considered a destructive device.
MS doesn't care where your data is, they're happy to go digging through your C drive to collect/mine whatever they want, assuming you can avoid all the dark patterns they use to push you to save everything on OneDrive anyway and they'll record all your interactions with any other AI using Recall
reply