People wouldn't be arrested for writing code, but as it happened in Spain, people with Pixels and GrapheneOS are already treated as drug dealers

Maybe there's a case to distance Mullvad from him, then. Not taking a stand is also a political choice.

Interesting how in a different comment you say

> I want the same for all Spaniards and will gladly pay high taxes if my family, friends, and my neighbors can also have that same opportunity.

It's irrelevant whether AI "makes any mistakes" or not, there are no morals either way, and people just seem to be desensitised to all of this

Isn't that a selfish view, though? "Works for me,so I don't care that systemd is creating dependencies everywhere for everyone else".

I appreciate that it simplifies some things, but I can't understand that you can't choose which parts of it to install, or even replace parts of it with alternatives.

Isn't linux about choice? It feels we're going on a downwards spiral where choice is being taken away from us in every domain

Government and public services change to (ideally) open source, and "impose"/"require" downstream compatibility.

This would create the incentive and make change easier

We could also argue that even internally in the US, the current president was not democratically elected. Maybe you agree that another state should go there and remove him, just because.

I for one would support a Native American take over of the White House, and giving them back their country. You seem to support this logic

Otherwise, at some point, one of the 10000 [0] won't know there are alternatives and different ways of doing things.

[0] https://xkcd.com/1053/

So again, it just harms the general public, while making it harder to catch criminals.

That's why Europe needs that push to get their act together and start being self-sufficient, digital services-wise.

Consider how whoever complains about blacklist/whitelist would eventually complain about about allow/deny and say they are non-inclusive. Where would this stop?

I would say that as long as the term in unequivocal (and not meant to be offensive) in the context, then there's no need to self-censor

I would argue, without any evidence, that when terms are used and embraced, they lose their negative connotations. Because in the end, you want to fight the negativity they represent, not the term itself.