Most nuclear power proposals are just LARPing as "cheap" as they pretend subsidies don't exist.

In addition you have to shut nuclear power plants down in summers due to lack of sufficient cooling. That means you need to plan alternative replacement power generation.

Also users might become part (victim?) of a police investigation because of illegal actions that seem to originate from their local residential connection.

So still good to take down such backdoors. Would be nice to go after the botnet operators as well...

If apps ship with stealth backdoors to sell access to the user's internal residential network, that's malware. I doubt any users want app providers to sell access to their private file server and anything else on their local network.

It doesn't seem like monopoly abuse to exclude such malware from application stores, just like key loggers or apps intercepting other apps network traffic without the user being aware of it (say the banking app's network traffic and password entry).

You don't need prepared statements. The fix is parameter binding: submitting parameters separate from the SQL statement itself, separating code from (user) data.

> The analogous mitigation for agents is to have fixed behaviors they can perform, such as “read repo 1” “read repo 2”, etc., and the user input is used as data to select which of these fixed behaviors to execute.

No, that only deals with some special issues. It also doesn't separate code and (user) data, so it's not the same issue.

Having only limited actions is akin to using more restrictive database permissions. That also makes SQL injection no longer relevant: only SQL statements can be executed that the user is allowed to run either way.

> What it gets from the body is raw physical measurements

No, sensory organs like eyes do a lot of processing ("interpreation"). They certainly don't send "raw physical measurements" to the brain.

Where can I access such a Lisp expert system?

If I cannot because they don't exist: then they cannot do the same things an LLM can do. And of course one can assert anything and everything about what a non-existing thing could do.

It also has the effect of making software adopting such licenses getting removed from open source distributions.

This doesn't affect what copyright law allows or does not allow.

Also I think Anthropic very much suppports gathering data by whatever means possible. That should work both ways.

Well, Trump seems to control a lot of people given how afraid they are.

Trump is also called not the smartest person out there.

So...

Unless your distro changes the default to make "ssh -X" and "ssh -Y" behave the same which popular distributions do.

You mean run everything distro-provided as root?

There are reasons systems don't do that any more. Even distro-provided services are often setup in a way to no run with full rights. Can you imaging reasons why this is done?

What was neglected is doing the same on user level, which should be done for pretty much the same reasons.

It's protecting people from themselves, so basically like the safeguards already included in the models.

Yes, they are fine? They might no longer include full first party support by Microsoft for not being "new". Same as buying a used car (also comes with the "shady sites" for a far longer time).

Though this not making any difference by Microsoft not doing any support either way to make more money is a business decision by Microsoft.

So basically like US companies subsidizing offerings with selling user data, ads for crypto scams, manipulation for elections, making people addicted to gambling and so on?

Seems fair and an improvement as you can choose between that and not. Unlike say offerings from Meta where the data selling and efforts to further gambling addiction is always included.

Which makes containers crap on Windows and *BSD as they have to run the currect libc or equivalent. Thus you need to build a different container per OS version which sucks compared to Linux.

That's why we still have every basic security issue like hardcoded passwords, SQL or other injections, XSRF and so on repeated on an endless loop. Even if they are trivial to avoid.

No. But many lack basic understanding of web technologies or facts like that a browser can be used to access more than a single site. This leads to not understanding what problems cross-site requests can cause and thus the impossibility of understanding what CORS is for.