Ask yourself, would you like to receive a christmas or birthday card with a personalized message or something produced you know was 100% produced by AI bot - even better when it has a hallucination in there.

I do use AI myself and don't believe its worthless, but I believe its only useful when you ask it fairly specific questions, with data it can consume publicly like "whats the rules for XYZ in this standard and if i do this problem like this in this way would that comply with those rules?" Type of thing.

I've also found it useful for programming (but often does miss things or do things a long-handed way) you have to be very careful about the results and not simply accept it because it appears to work, so it still requires a human to have a brain.

I'm not at all surprised that consumers dislike AI in this way because of the way its used, eg to replace help desk support, and create further distance between consumers and the companies they do business with. That's generally 100% how those companies use it because that is how AI companies have marketed it to executives.

Only now are we seeing posts from those people saying "waahh tokens cost too much how long till we can build our own AI". Which is another point in itself business workflows should be resilient and not heavily dependent on the cost of openai or anthropic tokens to be competitive. If these two companies can simply turn up the money knob and make your business have a huge risk then that's bad.

Also 100% we need to have sovereignty. We cannot depend on a single country to provide AI infrastructure. They can just shut it off whenever they feel like it. Maybe this week it's Fable/Mythos, and next week it's an entire country because Donald is unhappy and wouldn't "make a deal" on some thing he wants.

Even large companies have adopted this crap and you don't know whether there's any digital signing going on or whether they're downright stealing anything you have of value.

It's not difficult to generate a rpm, deb, tgz and relevant detatched .asc PGP signature or if you hate PGP use openssh signatures or something.

Now it just costs them the data and development cost to maintain. Any remaining problems they'll throw some crappy AI moderator at to fix.

Also the thing about "surreptitiously giving melinda antibiotics" weren't actually written by Bill and he has since denied it.

> It’s unclear who the Boris referenced in the emails is, or if the messages were ever sent to anyone. Only Epstein is listed in the to and from fields.

https://www.theverge.com/tech/871879/bill-gates-epstein-file...

So the emails were some emails in Epstein's draft folder he never sent to anyone. This is a dude who peddled in dirt and leverage against anyone and anything, probably how he got so wealthy and why he had his island parties in the first place. There is a reason why in the Kevin Rudd related mentions he is described as a "odious character in the extreme" basically stay clear from him.

That's why I've been thinking of paring my desktop-replacement 16" laptop with a Pocket Reform or something like that.

My HTPC is an old ATX desktop computer on its side in a Phanteks P400A case. On it's side it just looks like a black speaker grill front to back cooling it has three Noctua NF-A12x25 fans that are barely even visible.

The good thing about using standard parts is if the GPU died I could buy another cheap one to replace it.

But I guess that case is a cool idea if you didn't have those things.

I tend to upgrade my laptop every 6-8 years and by then there is nothing to upgrade well, frankly the technology has moved on, new PCIe standards DDR screen tech etc. One of the reasons I did not buy a framework (was very close to it) is the screen. I value having a decent screen attached to my laptop. I think some of these newer laptops with Tandem OLEDs will be a real improvement over what was out there previously.

I thought about the port configuration as well, and that's all cool you can have 6 ports that can be anything you like, but really they are just two USB controllers controlling all that. One on either side. What would be my ultimate port configuration? Well probably like some USB-C and an audio port and a HDMI port. The network adapter sticks out so that's going to be super annoying. The newer Lenovo and Dell laptops have replaceable USB ports, which means if I wear one out I can replace it easily.

What I also realized is you can do some really cool things like PCIe passthrough with Thunderbolt that of course you don't get on a Framework. Want to have an awesome GPU? Well you can use an eGPU or perhaps an flash a firmware to your NVMe (you can't do that over USB), but you can over PCIe passthrough where the device shows up as /dev/nvme0. I've always had problems with disks over USB, sometimes they'll drop from the system, and things like eSATAp were always more reliable for 3.5" disks, but that's only available on desktop with a special bracket.

One of the other reasons I ended up not going for the Framework was that it uses Insyde BIOS and they were a bit slow on their Logofail firmware updates. Prompt security updates are important to me. None of them also have vPro or Ryzen Pro models, (so no encrypted RAM) https://fwupd.github.io/libfwupdplugin/hsi.html#dram-memory-... if you want to achieve higher HSI 4 levels. https://fwupd.github.io/libfwupdplugin/hsi.html#hsi4-secure-...

In the end I'm just going to spend a little on a T1g Gen8 probably. I can upgrade the RAM in that because it's CAMM2. It may cost a little more than the framework but on special I should be able to get it for a nice price.

If I had less money I'd probably just go for previous gen.

The solution to not being poor is being rich. You could apply that logic to a lot of things. Have this thing instead of that thing. Using your example above of "differential privacy scanning"

Differential privacy is a property of a dataset meaning you can’t tell an individual was part of a dataset. If it’s traceable back to the individual device it’s not differentially private.

I think at this point you're just trying to say "don't have this thing have that thing instead" as a response to anything.

Except it doesn't work like that in practice. It would be nice if it did. Often a person can be found guilty simply by jury in a trial based on what they think a person might have done. That's reality, and it is the case in western would countries not some obscure dictatorship.

Perhaps the problem doesn't have a binary solution.

The world won't fall apart because people have secrets.

The main problem is there are no products that solve the problem Chat Control aims to solve without infringing massively on everyone's privacy, (including children). Any suggestions that do exist come with serious risks or have complexities, eg homomorphic encryption is a generally new area that has expensive computational requirements.

The reason for that is because it's easier to encrypt data than develop some kind of system with a magical key only authorized people are able to use under certain circumstances.

What Mullvad highlights is that the whole chat control proposal is mired in corruption. A particular individual with an agenda to sell something has adjacent financial interests to being part of the solution. No doubt they will want funding for "research", because they don't actually have a solution everyone can use. They try to make it appear as if they do (grift) to get the politicians on board. Then there's a harassment campaign component (specifically the EU Survivors Taskforce) portion which aims to apply public emotional pressure on any remaining politicians who have concerns.

In the end everyone else (companies, developers etc) will have to do the heavy lifting to try to find some way to comply by their legal interpretation with whatever vague brain fart is passed into law.

Make no mistake about it, this proposal has nothing to do with child protection but rather is all about demonizing the use of encryption. Law enforcement would love to be able to simply argue the presence of encryption means there is likely to be offending. This is why they fight so hard in the UK in regard to Apple having default encryption on ADP. You can't make the argument to a court owning an iPhone means you're a criminal for instance.

The end game, and goal post movement will simply be to argue they used non-compliant software/products. If they do have something on the person then this will be used to argue that further offenses were likely concealed, (even if that is not the case) and they went to effort to do so (premeditation). It's a gift that keeps giving all along the trial process.

> EDIT: Here is one idea I had: Sign images/video with hardware-secured chips (camera sensor or GPU?) that is traceable to the device. When images are further processed/edited, then they will be subject to differential-privacy scanning. This can also combat deepfakes, if image authenticity can be proven by the device that took the image.

And there obviously will be totally like no way to like not do that and then have an anonymous photo. What are you going to do, confiscate all the computers, phones and cameras that already exist and don't have this special "hardware secure chip". Honestly at this point I think you're a troll.

> If your position is that governments (who represent us,voters) should accept the status quo, and just let their people suffer injustice, I don't think I can support that.

Things can be always worse, and you shouldn't assume that the powers that be will use these things to prosecute the things you find morally offensive. Which is another problem as well.

> Mullvad is also in for a rude awakening. If criminals use Tor or VPNs, those will also face a ban. We need to give governments solutions that lets them do what they claim they want to do (protect the public from victimization) while preserving privacy to avoid a very real dystopia.

The space will innovate regardless of what governments want, so that's the rude awakening. Criminals always will be criminals and they'll just get better at doing what they want to do regardless.

> Freedoms and liberties must not come at the cost of injustice. And as i argued elsewhere on HN, in the end, ignoring ongoing injustice will result in even less freedoms and liberties. If there was a pluralistic referendum in the EU over chat control, I would be surprised if the result isn't a law that is even far worse than chat control.

Okay then guess we can all "think of the children" whenever anyone is worrying about the injustice caused by abuse of these new powers.

> I understand that you seem to think that adding systems like this will placate governments around the world but that is not the case. We have already conceded far more than we ever should have to government surveillance for a false sense of security.

Placation of government and law enforcement is never complete. For them every goal post moved is perceived as making their job easier. They only have one job, and that's to convict people of things. That is the only metric they care about. That includes making up new offences to charge people with, including "the defendant used non compliant products to hide their offending which may or may not exist" - not a crime in the EU right now, but you can bet that will be the next step if people refuse to use compliant products.

> Let me post a longer reply later. But for your last point, we do have automated machine generated alarms in form of smoke detectors. We're legally required to have them in our homes.

A smoke alarm has very little room for abuse as it only does one thing which largely aligns with the occupant's interests. A more comparable argument would be that you must have cameras in every room in your house to record burglars, home invaders and potential child abductors. We need not look any further than the abuse of door bell cameras in the US to see how that plays out.

Funny how nobody has ever made that argument.