Pretty sure that would be advertising from space, rather than in space, which would definitely make a difference in this case

Nah, I’m pretty sure it just requires giving the background AI agent admin privileges. The agent can already accidentally spend millions of dollars on tokens, apparently, so admin powers don’t actually make it all that much more dangerous

/s

No, there’s still a fundamental disconnect there.

The law may say they have to, but they don’t actually have to. The difference is important

They’d be supposed to, but they certainly don’t have to. Nobody can actually tell the jury what to decide, or there’d be no point in a jury

Pinning the CPU clock uses more power, and generates more heat. If it were “sensible” to do so, then the CPUs for consumer devices wouldn’t have variable clock speeds to begin with.

Since people do care about devices getting hot in their hands, and draining batteries, this is a stupid and lazy fix for a problem of their own making and they’re expecting users to put up with the problems it causes in exchange for Microsoft being able to treat their operating system the same way social media companies treat their feeds

There’s a bug difference between telling people who are hopelessly hooked on something that they can’t have it any more, and telling someone they’ll never be allowed to start on it to begin with.

Also, this law doesn’t have to completely eliminate smoking to have done it’s job. All they’re trying to do is reduce it, which reducing availability certainly will

The fact that it’s a bad idea doesn’t mean that isn’t the reason

Also, the answer to your actual question is no. There’s definitely no way to block people from using any particular characters at the kernel level.

What you seem to be asking for is a way to absolutely forbid all software from writing certain characters to files, and/or from reading those characters. Aside from requiring that the kernel inspect all data in detail before letting other software have it, which would slow everything way down, it would prevent anyone from reading or writing binary data which happens to contain those sequences of bytes by coincidence. Binary data includes things like the programs which make the system work, so blocking those characters would be terminal

It ought to look like a bunch of □, which is the glyph generally used to indicate that the font has nothing to represent the character.

Specifically you’d expect U+25A1 □ WHITE SQUARE

“consider” as in “you won’t understand why Israel does what it does unless you think about”, it doesn’t mean “give them what they want”

It’s no less protected than any other kind of speech.

The problem is that it’s protected from the government, rather than from the social media company

By being in debt, I presume. Although I don’t know if invested money counts as revenue, so maybe they’re spending that rather than going into actually debt

To the best of my knowledge, openai have never made a profit. If by “made” you just mean income, then they loose money by spending far more than that, presumably on building and running datacentres

Because solar panels powerful enough to run a drone are large and heavy, and/or fragile. A solar panel sufficiently lightweight to be lifted by a low power drone, and simultaneously powerful enough to supply that drone, isn’t easy

Yellowstone would really suck, but it would suck differently than nuclear winter.

For starters, I don’t think it would be directly catastrophic on the other side of the world. The Americas would be pretty fucked, but some places would probably only see climate problems rather than the actual end of days.

Also, nuclear winter would include nuclear fallout. It would involve far less actual material coming out of the sky, but what it did bring would be poison in a way which volcanic ash wouldn’t really match (not to say volcanic eruptions aren’t poisonous, but they’re not persistently and insidiously poisonous like radioactive decay could be)

It was pointed out to me a while back that the paradox of tolerance is only a paradox if you consider tolerance to be a philosophical position.

In fact, we don’t treat it like that. We treat it as a social contract, in which context it is no paradox at all to say that if you aren’t tolerant then other people aren’t obliged to tolerate you in turn