Your post implies that government is good by default.
There's hiding bad activity the government was elected to perform, like intelligence meddling in foreign affairs to protect the country's interests, and there's hiding activity to shield themselves from voter accountability, like using the apparatus to enrich other parts of government at a direct cost to its own citizens, or shield malicious actors from accountability.
They do lots of both, so why trust by default?
Problem is there's too much professional software that simply won't run on Linux, things you spend all day in and even if you can get it to run in a sandbox the experience sucks (because it's too resource intensive, otherwise it would get all SaaSy and force you into the cloud), like CAD software, 3D modeling tools, editing...
Monopolistic behavior is monopolistic behavior. MSFT needs a beatdown.
Just don't confuse wanting to work for having to work.
My grandmother, who had been retired for 30 years, turned her music-writing hobby into a second career after my grandfather passed by taking on artists, getting involved with concerts, etc.
I've met plenty of very old dudes in my hobbies of archery and shooting guns who are absolute masters and charge too little too profit or nothing at all for tuning, gunsmithing, and coaching.
These have nothing to do with keep a roof over your head, and everything to do with staying sane when the expectation seems to be waiting around until you die
But you're right, and the management who kept ignoring problems is going to be tried here. It just so happens that the producer was also an actor and happened to be the one given a bad prop. Alec was the manager of everyone: he hired people, and decided they were doing a good enough job. After employees complained about safety problems, he ignored them. After people QUIT over those safety problems, he continued ignoring them. Alec the producer is the one on trial, not Alec the actor.
Asshats seem to do this in the death throes of failed ideas. Lose a case and double down with a pile of new laws that take a decade to untangle in the courts.
This is 100% a replay of racists' loss on segregation, and it's happening in both red and blue states on separate issues: as bigots in red stateslose on human rights for classes they dislike and classists in blue states lose the rich having the monopoly on force/self-defense.
Trained, qualified police doing quality police work keeping dangerous people with guns off the street, got it.
The Ancient Greeks weren't actively trying to turn the strawberries in your fridge into a SaaS subscription.
Not really: for context, the civil rights movement in 50's and 60's was far more violent, like actually violent with military being called in across many American cities.
Increased competition is ALWAYS better for the customer.
You're forgetting AppBrain from like 15 years ago.
I agree on the concerns, but it's a virtually universal truth, so long as they're actually forced to treat other app stores fairly. We might end up with a true third party stepping in to claim the throne, at least until the mega-corps reverse all the optimization they've created for their own benefits (even things like searches for apps are not fully intended to benefit the user right now, things most people don't really realize).
This assumes a level of focus, presence of mind, and training to reliably discriminate between injurious and non-injurious active threats and measure your response with non-lethal force on a gamble that your attacker is non going to be physically violent towards you.
Cops fail at this all the time, it's not reasonable to treat non-injurious threats as acceptable behavior and demand non-police with zero legal protections handle it better.
If you're going to walk up to a stranger in the street and threaten them, then proceed to advance when they respond with "please stop! Get away from me!", you have forfeited any right to benefit of the doubt on their part.
This is stupid. Teslas can park themselves, they're not just on rails. It should be pulling over and putting the flashers on if a driver is unresponsive.
That being said, the driver knew this behavior, acted with wanton disregard for safe driving practices, and so the incident is the driver's fault and they should be held responsible for their actions. It's not the courts job to legislate.
It's actually the NTSB's job to regulate car safety so if they don't already have it congress needs to grant them the authority to regulate what AI behavior is acceptable/define safeguards against misbehaving AI.
Lactose curious is a thing, one of my coworkers will have dairy on special occasions and plans for the aftermath