I think it kinda doesn’t matter. If they can catch 95% of all users, that’s pretty close to total victory. Well more than enough to shut out access from Linux systems for most things without causing public backlash.

Apple, Microsoft, and Google account for roughly 95% of all human user systems.

Did any of these outfits actually produce quality tech journalism? In my mind CNET and the like were all marketing pieces about the next smart TV. I do use Tom’s Hardware when I’m shopping for PC parts because they seem to do a good job with their benchmarking. The all-time great hard tech news site was Anandtech, and that’s been gone for years.

Has anyone been able to find the list of persons included in the source? Vmfunc’s blog says that a list was published but later taken down.

EDIT: wayback machine of course

Yes with one quirk. I don’t use the right shift, just the left. Not sure why I’ve ended up this way, or if it’s a common variation.

EDIT: looked it up. It’s very common

a very small number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action

Really? Most I found on their Wiki was beating up some guards during their break-ins. Assault? Sure. But terrorism?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/types-crime/terrorism

Oh. Disrupting a computer for a political purpose is terrorism in the UK. Hacktivists and bus bombers, basically the same thing.

Revoking drivers licenses would probably be more appropriate than seizing vehicles. The upside to that is revoking licenses, I’d wager, is a whole lot cheaper than installing and monitoring speed trackers.

So long as the person with the speeding problem is paying for that I guess it’s acceptable. But then we have yet another example of people without much money getting a raw deal. Means testing? Everything gets complicated when it gets to the implementation details.

Not much in this article really. Starts out with claiming that progressives didn’t like pollution, and thus became anti science. Doesn’t elaborate. Drops the thread entirely, and continues with a couple different arguments.

First that subsidizing demand with constrained supply just increases prices. Fair enough. Second argument is that there are too many veto points in the building/producing pipeline. Probably also fair.

But that’s really the whole Abundance argument, and the article alludes to that book repeatedly. I can’t tell if this was supposed to be its own original argument, or just a description of the Abundance arguments. I bet there are better synopses of the Abundance arguments than this article though.

Now that is an interesting idea. Don’t know if you’re joking, but has anyone tried using an LLM as a TTRPG character or DM?