You could add features to make it a PWA and explain to users how to save it t their desktop. I used ProtonMail for years that way (I do not have a smartphone anymore, so no longer do so).
I believe that if you have a network stack and can download files from the internet--which would include software--that it counts. I don't want to re-read to find the part, but they seemed to imply that any system where you could download software from the internet and then run it.
> “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application.
To whittle down the the important part:
> “Covered application store” means
> any [...] general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application
If you have a network stack, you can 100% connect to a "covered application store" and thus the OS falls under the scope of the law.
> "Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application
There is a reasonable argument that a linux distribution is, itself, a host application. This is clearly an argument against their intention... but makes perfect sense to me. With this argument, the law does not apply to pretty much any environment where the applications are scheduled and run by a supervising process, at least by my reading.
Well, I couldn't disagree more with you: being anti-AI is absolutely not an extreme position. You are living in a bubble if you think it is. "Fervent anti-AI territory" is a good position, not hate speech.
Abolish it rather than continuing the current path, strict prohibition on any creative endeavor, and being extremely skeptical about anything other than direct language translation is an extreme opinion.
You agreeing with that does not make it less extreme. And OP's "vile machines raping the planet" is obviously vitriol whether you personally consider it hateful or not.
> "vile machines raping the planet" is obviously vitriol
Well, I still think you are giving an opinion and I am giving mine. I disagree with your opinion. Mr. Pike is making a statement of fact. I do not consider it particularly vitriolic. You may consider it hyperbolic and I could understand that (even if I do not agree with it).
> Abolish it rather than continuing the current path, strict prohibition on any creative endeavor, and being extremely skeptical about anything other than direct language translation
...is not extreme in the slightest. If something is wrong (either morally or as a good and viable path forward) it only makes sense to cease following that path. I posit that it is not possible to creatively use this technology. It can only serve to steal the creativity of others. Prompting a machine to make something out of misc. parts for you does not make you creative. Nor does it make the machine creative. But for us to agree on that we would have to better define either creativity or art (spoiler: my view is that only sentient beings can be creative or make art). I suppose I could agree that the developers of an AI system are being creative, but certainly not the users. Being skeptical is always a good position with something new until shown reasons to not be skeptical. Positions are allowed to grown and change, s tarting skeptical about something is absolutely a reasonable position to start from. I see none of your statement as being evidence of extremism at all. Sounds like exercising sound, reasonable judgement.
>> "vile machines raping the planet" is obviously vitriol
> Mr. Pike is making a statement of fact.
He is embellishing his own perception and broadcasting it over the internet. If it was a widely-known fact then he wouldn't have to stand on his soapbox to shout it out.
I think the Occam's razor motive is that he needed catharsis for wading through AI shit. Many of us do, our attention spans have been abused by online advertisement for years, and AI makes it easier than ever to abuse that outreach. But you need to remember that people probably called the internet, radio, television and probably fiction novels a "vile machine" at some point, feeling relatively justified with the judgement. We have the benefit of hindsight now to call them utterly hysterical.
Yeah, but the industry is a big part of the problem and most people working in it are complicit at this point (whether or not they are reluctantly complicit).
I also really like asymmetrical games. In particular the various Tafl[0] reconstructions. Some are unbalanced, but some are very balanced and fun to play as either attacker or defender. There are various versions with rule variations to accommodate various board sizes too.
I have not played Unlur. Looks like a cool hex variant. I like the initial phase where who plays white is decided. It is a neat way of working that out.
Agreed. I tried to dig around a bit in the pdf (though I am admittedly distracted at the moment) and it looked like a tree walk interpreter being built. At least at first. There were some sections involving x86 assembly, so it may eventually compile down to that architecture in later segments?
If anyone knows more about the style of copmiler(s) that this covers I would be interested in knowing. If I find the time to dig through the book a bit more and find out I'll update here.
