There is no right to privacy in public spaces so ,just like so many other things EFF handwrings about, this argument is a complete nonstarter.

It's evidence tampering. The reason why it's illegal is to give law enforcement something to charge someone with regardless of how much evidence they destroy. Perjury is illegal for similar reasons.

From a CS perspective, languages like Rust and Ada are much easier to learn than the stereotypical easy languages (i.e Python). You just have to think about what programming languages are, rather than "how to write program to do X" which is the typical approach.

Don't compilers have some guarantee of behaviours? I.e even if you don't know exactly what instructions and order the compiler generates there is a guarantee that it is computationally/mathematically equivalent to the statements you wrote. Otherwise it would be a pretty terrible compiler. That's a pretty big jump to writing instructions you don't understand, since LLMs can't make the same guarantees about a prompt/request.

Probably the desktop tower. I've seen many people call it a hard drive, but I'm actually not sure how common it is to have speakers in the tower.

Did they use LLMs? It's not mentioned in the article.

Isn't this all distros? I've heard arguments that the only defining feature of a distro is the package manager, as you can install and configure software packages identically. E.g you can make Kali from Debian, just from some settings changes and installing some packages.

Okay, I haven't kept up with the jargon for LLMs does hallucinate only refer to text outputs?

Isn't "hallucinating", just a term for an unjustified error? So why does the author think that only outputting numbers, and selecting a prewritten choice make it immune to hallucinations? It seems like if I had an LLM classify apples and oranges, it would be perfectly capable of calling an apple an orange.

Saying "I'm taking precautions against you" is borderline accusatory. If this was the true reason no socially competent person would say this.

A distinction needs to be made of false criminal reports, and false claims in general.

False claims of any crime are going to be substantially higher than false criminal reports of the same crime. The barrier to entry is just much lower. And there is still a social cost to being falsely accused of a crime even without a police report. (Loss of employment, social alienation).

It's also probably not true that it happens at the same rate as other reports. Certain crimes are more plausible to lie about than others, I would imagine false homicide claims are rare since there aren't mountains of dead people to pin on someone.

In the case of things like sexual assault and child abuse, there is lots of positive sympathy to exploit for something that is almost impossible to prove wrong, so the cost-benefit is much better than most other accusations of crime.

(Notice how often child molestation comes up in criminal defenses? It's an easy way to milk sympathy, while being impossible to disprove.)

Given the controversy already present with "super discreet", wouldn't you expect even greater negative social pressure with "loud and proud"?

It seems obvious that acting paranoid (regardless of sex or the subject of fear), results in negative views of the person, so they would naturally want to hide their paranoia.