Which amendment protects someone's bodily autonomy or medical treatment from interference by the states?

If the Federal Congress passed a law providing that abortions are legal on demand up to the 22 week of gestation, after which it would require the corroboration of two doctors, would that stand, or would it be struck down by SCOTUS?

Same for legalization of marijuana, and many other "social" issues.

Of course, it wasn't but there was MP/M-86/CCP/M/CDOS/DR-DOS which allowed you to have 4 "users"/virtual TTYs.

So we ended up using that along with some tweaks to the software (including an IBM 3270 emulator, MS-Word/Excel (the DOS versions), and a custom software app) that ended up getting deployed to a few hundred government offices.

Mostly worked except some of the software really didn't like the fact that it was being swapped out of keyboard/screen access.

I work in Automatic Fare Collection (think railway passenger gates, ticket vending, contactless readers, bus driver consoles and readers etc as well as the backends that deal with the fare calculation and payments).

There are usually multiple vendors involved, and even with the best API and interface documentation and individual system testing against the specifications, you still need to bring the entire environment, including the hardware, together.

These ITFs (Integration Test Facilities) tend to be in existence for the life of the systems, including after hardware refreshes etc.

Yes you can test performance with jmeter etc, but sometimes you need 20 people walking in a circle between an entrance gate and an exit gate.

You need a testing environment, especially if there are other physical elements that are being integrated (embedded and other equipment).

That's the same in the US/UK/AU/NZ/CA/DE/JP/IN.

The difference in the US is that SCOTUS basically made it impossible to restrict corporate spending on politics. That is what needs to be fixed in the US, not Corporate Personhood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Editors do not have any IPRs over the resulting literary work.

Following that simile, the AI is the "author" and the developer is the "editor".

Given that an AI cannot be an "author" under copyright law, there is no copyright in the final product.

We don't have the same level of "proven solutions" and constraints and mathematical rigor that engineering has, nor do we have the legal/liability requirements of "Professional Engineers".

I hope that I qualify as the equivalent of an artisan, like a carpenter that makes furniture, that has elements of both art and craft. Even as I've moved up (and down) the hierarchy of programmer/senior/"architect"/manager.

Programmers fit the "craftsperson/journeyperson/apprentice" model much better than engineering practice.

On the other hand, the architect using CAD tools to create those drawings did include the necessary human creativity/direction even if the tools did things like apply building code rules etc.

Source code being subject to copyright and also considered to be "speech" has provided much more protection to the public from government overreach, eg restrictions on cryptography source code.

1. Making a derivative work of already existing copyrighted code that breaks that code's license (eg injecting GPL code in output).

2. Fully LLM generated code is not able to be subject to copyright, because there is not a human author, which means that it is not able to be subject to a license.

#1 is a problem that the AI vendors are indemnifying customers for.

#2 is not something that AI vendors can change, as it is part of the enforceability of IPRs under law.

Companies are going to have to rely on trade secrets for protection of their closed source code, FOSS/GPL projects don't have that option.

Because the US Copyright begs to differ.

This means that any license (GPL, BSD, Apache etc) are no longer enforceable on your contribution.

The US copyright office has released a public report about the fact that copyright requires a human author.

They compare the different cases of the equivalent of "prompt engineering", of a client that provides an architect guidance on what they want, but the architect holds the copyright in the actual drawings and structure, even if they use CAD tools.

Totally AI generated code as a result of a prompt is not going to be able to be defended under copyright IPRs.

So GCC are literally ensuring that there is a human in the loop to ensure that the GPL will stay enforceable.

Avoids the issues about people sitting in the wing area and "enjoying" the roller coaster effect when the plane rolls or yaws?

On smart meters:

Victoria has had them for 2 decades now.

If there were anti-consumer uses that our retailers or distributers took advantage of we'd know about them by now.

We've also had a fully privatized grid for quarter of a century, with generators, transmission, distribution, and retail separated.

The rorts have been by the distributors "gold plating" the poles/wires, and some machinations of the NEM by coal/gas generators.

Neither of which were caused by the smart meter rollout.