Ultimately, an option becomes a requirement and then the protection for users is totally gone.

Apple on the other hand offers a locked down product that many people want because they don’t trust themselves. I think a lot of people have short memories for all the hacking and spyware that plagued Windows users a couple decades ago. I think we also need to remember that Apple is not the government so people have alternatives to buying their devices.

Personally, I think people should have the right to buy a locked down device. It’s not on Apple to provide open competitors to their product. And why should developers have a right to develop for the platform? Heck, I wanted the iPhone back when it didn’t even have 3rd party apps at all.

I don’t use Windows on any personal machines, so there’s no way for this to benefit me. I hope it helps others who are frustrated by this though!

A physical notebook is so easily lost I wouldn’t even consider it.

Hobbyist mathematics may long outlive a lot of research mathematics, and I think that’s okay. There’s nothing in the human spirit of inquiry that necessitates academia as an all-powerful institution. Heck, there have been a lot of problems with the institution in recent years, and those have everything to do with perverse incentives and nothing to do with AI.

Do you use the same password on every site? How do you deal with data breaches?

If the collar can be deactivated to be removed for servicing/off duty/retirement/replacement/etc then it can be hacked and replaced with a placebo.

That is not true. In academia you have extremely niche research specializations and tenure as two major contributors to inertia. In general software development you have an enormous amount of career mobility.

Software developers learn new languages, new frameworks, new tools, new development methodologies all the time. A string theorist who decides to pivot away from string theory essentially has to start their career over from scratch. It’s not even close!

I can see there is no further productive discussion to be had with you at all. I bid you good day.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incomprehensible

I believe Terry Tao when he says the bottleneck will no longer be the writing of proofs, it’ll be everything else: reading them, reviewing, publishing, and teaching from them. A bunch of proofs that nobody reads are of no use to anyone.

Yes, because I already knew what schedulers are, what spinlocks are, and if I want to know what futex is I can go look it up. Comprehension is within my grasp.

Your original claim, which you’ve repeatedly distanced yourself from (by trying to use comprehensible examples) but won’t admit to, was about incomprehensible stuff. That is, text that no human could possibly understand, ever.

You’re repeatedly engaging in intellectual dishonesty rather than simply admit that “human comprehension probably will continue for the foreseeable future”, which is really not a controversial idea at all.

The age of humans comprehending things is coming to an end [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49312914

Nowhere did I suggest that “the reason for discrediting string theorists is that they have financial stakes in the idea.” Please try to be more charitable than that.