Very neat and fun project though, and good to know there’s a nice solution if the need every arises.

The federal government a) saves everything, b) is constantly trying to attack encryption, c) tries to insert backdoors in hardware, and d) otherwise gives itself the means to spy on citizens and aliens alike. Even though we fight and have won, it’s been pyrrhic. I’m tired of constantly having the battle every time a new generation forgets why privacy is important.

I can’t imagine ways in which an amendment asserting every citizen’s innate ownership over their digital footprint, data sovereignty, etc. could be a misuse of the constitution. “No government shall abridge access to secure and private communication technology. No government shall collect or persist a profile of any citizen except as required to serve justice. No government can compel decryption of private data. Etc…”

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the right to privacy in the digital age is fundamental enough that it needs to be distinguished in our founding documents and elevated to a level on par with the freedom of expression in more than just case law. Most importantly, the government shouldn't be able to spy on citizens either. Right now it does. This has implications for encryption law too.

The point of an amendment is to establish the axioms upon which we evaluate all future laws. From there we can build a legal framework that applies similar ideas to the private sector, as and where appropriate.

I think most people have felt that way before. Only way forward is to practice with the new tool (=

Why are we even arguing then? You and I agree. Did I ever say "don't share a single preference with the AI"? You set the guardrails and preferences and the AI follows them. This is how it's always worked so it's reasonable for me to assume that people "fighting the AI" have already done this and are being overly pedantic about the output. Otherwise it wouldn't be eating up inordinate amounts of time...

> Have I always been the manager of a team of bash scripts? No.

No. You're not even remotely close here. Let's revisit this once you've figure out how to have a team of bash scripts implement 100k lines of code and build entire systems in 2 weeks based on high level instructions and requirements shared in context and prompts. You have responsibility at a different level and scale in an AI native workflow.

I understand the boundaries of ownership and responsibility. That’s why I can tell you if you are spending inordinate amounts of time correcting AI code then you’re doing something wrong. Either write the code yourself or reassess your ownership boundaries. You’re acting as a manager of a team of agents in an agentic coding paradigm. Managers don’t tell me how to write code.

I am equating the nerve that develops in people that get lost bikeshedding (wasting time on inconsequential parts of the problem) with fighting an llm on inconsequential implementation details.

We most certainly agree: what matters should always be the actual requirements (functional, security, performance, etc.) You can't bikeshed an important topic. Everything else is implementers decision. In my experience an experienced engineer understands the difference and trusts implementers to make the decisions that they do own.

Anyway.

This thread spawned off of a discussion about how people still use Apple because though Linux may be easier than it's ever been it's still hard for anybody to run a Linux desktop system without occasional downtime and repair when something breaks. That was the point of the comment you initially responded to.

But, you missed it; you responded to:

"and almost bricked itself?? Not sure, had to fix apt"

with:

"well um axually you don't know what bricked means and that's probably a sign that you're too dumb to use linux. people who are too dumb to use linux shouldn't use it".

Even though we agree on the point, I felt like your response wasn't fair or really even apropos. So I replied. To be crystal clear:

1. they did fix their problem, but it was not a fun time for them. I can empathize 1000% with that. Sometimes I just want to do something and Linux (and everything I sign up for when deploying it) itself gets in the way. When an apt update causes a boot failure, irrespective of whether it's a failing driver or a borked firmware, it's annoying and it gets in the way. It's not an issue of technical literacy. You still have to figure out the issue and fix it which costs time and attention that is so scarce these days.

2. "bricked" has evolved colloquially to refer to a spectrum of failure modes covering everything from "the firmware is toast" to "user-space didn't come up". never mind that the author used the term "almost bricked" to indicated they knew it wasn't hard bricked but intended to communicate that it also wasn't functional. your entire attack stems from you rashly misinterpreting the author's intent here. but even if the author had demonstrated clear technically illiteracy, there's a way for you to add commentary about the definition of bricked without the distraction of attacking the person's technical aptitude. I think everyone knows it's almost impossible to inadvertently hard-brick anything these days

All in all, you, me, and the comment you initially replied to do seem to share the same understanding: to operate linux you need to have a level of tolerance to deal with the occasional issues that come with it. And for many (even technical) people that's not the right balance. Everything else you introduced to the discussion detracted from that point.

Which is the whole point, no? There would be more Linux everywhere if it didn’t occasionally break in ways that require special expertise to fix.

There are companies where you can spend years doing as you describe. More and more, though, you’re competing with people who care even though they don’t own, put in the same effort YoY, and invest in their job. Companies love these employees.

So I guess it really depends on your values and what you want out of life. If you enjoy hobbies and time outside of work, sure find a job where you can coast. Don’t get frustrated when you get laid off just find another place to work. Etc.

Plenty of people want to grow within the industry and build a career, though. And many have what we call basic self-respect and care about how they are perceived.

When you market a product you make exciting claims relative to the audience you’re engaging with. When was the last time you saw a product marketing page reverently lost all the academic research and prior art that came together to make a product possible?

If Layla’s functionality was available in a SaaS form in a way that could be used by all the people who are excited about and using Jev, wouldn’t this research have won hearts and minds last year when it landed? I would have a lot more empathy for the author if they’d taken a product to market and nobody cared. But even then maybe the market wasn’t ready. There are still reasonable explanations why sometimes ideas take off. We’re on a venture capital forum this shouldn’t need an explanation.

They might, however, ask whether they need a car with 30% profit margins or one with closer to 10%.

I don't think the grand social goal is to maximize economic growth. It's a stable healthy society.

Right now it really just feels like people spend on whatever the hell they want to without any thought whatsoever. Consume. Yes good, consuuuume. I'd trade slower economic growth for more responsible spending...

The Connectix case doesn't establish a right to circumvent DRM to play games that you "own". It only provides fair use protections for emulator developers.

The Bleem case (the one where the president said the litigation bankrupt them) has to do with game screenshots in comparative advertising.

And probably most apropos, irrespective of whether DRM is used or not, there is no protection in the DMCA or other US code that allows you to circumvent an authentication check in order to play a game. So "just remove the steam dll load command, it's trivial" exposes you to the same level of legal liability as "ugh I have to strip the Sony DRM then crack my copy of ".

If you look at what's happened recently, there are narrow regulatory exemptions, issued in 2024 and codified at 37 C.F.R. § 201.40(b)(19) that cover, among other things, restoring personal local play of lawfully acquired complete games after required authentication-server support ends. Other provisions permit preservation by eligible libraries, archives, and museums, including limited circumvention of console software. They do not establish a general personal right to jailbreak any console or decrypt any purchased game.

Very respectfully, I think you're conflating a few different things here. I very much wish the world was as you are trying to assert. But my own understanding of US law and case law and a check against Astra don't corroborate your claims.