LOL... A tent is a single product. What about a car? Do you expect to pay separately for the aluminum in the motor and gearbox, as well as for the entire car?

You pay with your data...

>Maybe it was my IP, but I cycled a few with my hosting provider and none of them made a difference. If I am unable to reliable obtain a 'trusted' IP, what good does it do?

That's true. I have a Class C IP range and a domain registered for 30 years and yet Gmail still started ignoring my email server a couple of years ago...

And what about very long strings of digits in the filenames - so long that they are too long for even the longest available numerical representation? In some apps, they are converted to floating point...

Nowadays I almost don't use Mc (except for file manipulation) because the Linux version has a serious weak point - it blocks the most important keystroke in shell: Tab. It is of course traditionally reserved for panel switching but this role could be deactivated when instead a single command line zone MC would allow to have a multi-line (in NC it was 3 or 4 line) zone for the shell scrolled display. This way it would be possible to have the full-size panel display (with the Tab switching panes) and one keystroke away reduced-size panels with full functionality of the shell tab key in the alternative panel mode... Another disadvantage is the complicated way of changing settings (especially the colors and file attributes display format) in practice forcing trial and error mode... True, it's not needed often but spending hours on it is rather deterrent.

And when will Americans finally learn that instead of the imperial system of units, the rest of the world uses SI?

I remember some analysis saying that it is true for classic versions like sedan. But on SUVs it is a couple of times bigger...

- to influence human behavior, - to prevent an effective countermeasure, - to be controlled by a single issuer, you - use in a selective or mass scale mode against a freely selected population,

then you have an equivalent recipe without SF flavor, because the same analysis shows that humanity cannot defend itself.

Of course, you can ignore existing social media and some cybercrime threats... unless they get included in the military weapons arsenals.

>If you lack the expertise and context, you have no business dictating how things ought to be, and rabble rousing is vile.

Your response seems to be typical for persons who are right because they are right - no args related to the content you respond to and ad personam args instead.

It is an oversimplified way of evaluating of consequences of overwhelming control the two monopolists have over access of small providers to email services. And it leads to wrong conclusions at least in respect to the range of its influence. Yes, it makes difficult life for the small amateur spammers as strongly as for beginner administrators and service providers.

However while for the determined spammers to hire experts isn't a problem for small entrepreneurs and for non-profit personal activities it is a blocking barrier.

Of course, they can use the services of established providers with all the limitations and other disadvantages of such solutions or accept slavery joining millions of users and firms accepting full and unlimited control of MS and Google (to their undisguised satisfaction).

About the consequences of sudden and totally unexpected interruption of email services without giving reasons we all can read often enough.

To say that "this is a nice example of how fiddly C memory management is" in the discussion is a bit too little - perhaps intended readers of the article would prefer an explicit warning there, just to be aware that they shouldn't forget to abort the program as you do.

>But then when you give a LLM a completely new problem, not similar to anything they have been trained on - For example, give it a snippet of code and ask it to find the bug. And they can do this. [...] I have done this when stuck on various things with great success.

I'm afraid you follow the same way of thinking about AI as used by the authors of the article: you accept the anthropomorphization of AI programs. Plus you use an unconfirmed assumption in your anecdotal example ("completely new problem, not similar to anything they have been trained on") to support your unjustified delight in AI capabilities.

Both are - in my opinion - bad for AI developments as they support misunderstanding and false image of LLMs and their application in the real world just like "I, Robot" did to create a false understanding of robotics (and AI...).