Pretty much a subscription model.

The domesticated species do seem to be able to survive in the wild though.

I find it kinda hard to understand how they are able to process nutrients into an egg so fast. and am inclined to believe that the nutrient composition would be very different, with the quick-layers being much less desirable.

Yuo cna aslo say ufck on teh Interner

Yeah, Markdown requires a space right after the #, but quite a few parsers choose to be forgiving of this rule, to make it easier for beginners.

Although that ends up making them pick up the proper syntax much more slowly.
And then also backfires in cases like what is shown here.

Hi, idiot here. AMA

A pretty good chance some luxury model might have been made for such a thing.
Even if not normally produced, some rich guy might have had it custom made.

The actual effects of the law are multi-staged, though.
Even if FOSS ends up managing to get this load off it, this still remains a scapegoat for Apple, Google and other players in this game, which enables them to collect as much extra data as they feel like.

Now I am thinking...
If a kit in California were to make a YouTube video using this OS and AG ends up not fining anyone for it, can that be used as a precedent?

AI is pretty much possible, we are thinking about it the wrong way.

We are expecting AI to have the 3 bests of both worlds.

• High I/O ability : we have that from computers
• Determinism and Correctness : computers always had a high level determinism, never correctness because a computer does not know what is correct^[this boils down to the same thing that one person once said to some computer guy - 'If I enter the wrong numbers, will I still get the correct answer?']
• Intelligence and thought : intelligence is a perception. AI will always have a lower depth of thought than us as long as it is dependent upon us

So we only get 1 best of the other world. In turn for some of this (person) world, we have to deal with 1 worst of the computer world. We lose determinism, because we rely upon the model being a higher level of fuzzy.

Of course, I don't mean "determinism" in the exact and full meaning. The LLM is still made on top of a computer, so for the same internal saved state and the same external input (including any randomising functions that might be used), the output will still be the same. But you can't get the kind of logical determinism that you expect from normal computer operations.
A dumbed down example to get my thoughts across: You can use either of a + b or ADD(A,B) or SUM(A:B) and will still get the same result.

Instead, use the threat of starvation to hinder those who would move agains them and now you have absolute control.

If there are enough people behind it, all you need is a Non-Cooperation Movement.
The regime will just leave themselves.

Except that they learnt their lesson after the last time and divided people enough and indoctrinated enough of them to make this not happen this time.

If one just does not require to use currency for everyday life, they can do this very easily.

For this, you need to have small enough independent communities that can feed and tool themselves.

• This is also why Gandhi had to die as early as possible. He had the solution and was actively popularising it.
• This is the single biggest reason why zoning was an absolute necessity (and to justify that to normal people, they required factory emissions to be unbearably high) for Governments attempting to gain full power.

To prevent creation of independent small communities, multiple levels of separation and dependence are required...

Fossil fuel reliance cannot be eliminated yet, because that would enable people to power their appliances without connecting to state controlled grid. Only after every electrical convenience becomes cloud dependent (and remotely disable-able), can sovereign electricity generation be approved. To add to that, make sure that independent electricity generation setups are as complex as possible to reduce self-repairability.

Repairability of tools, in general, needs to be controllable. Letting that go, will greatly increase the long-term sustainability of non-cooperating small-communities and keep productive and a significant threat to the government.

Communication media need to be thoroughly controlled, specially for the kind that allows discrete communication (without disturbing all non-involved parties). For this purpose, a multi-level hindrance needs to be setup.

• make devices locally non-manufacturable
  • This can easily be done by making all EM frequencies that are easier to create devices for, regulated by the government
    • Regulation might only be required until there are enough government resources to effectively monitor all lower frequencies
    • This would be easier as the lower data rates available at these frequencies will not allow for extraordinary encryption levels
• hinder device repairability (already explained)
• reduce expected lifetime under the guise of sophistication
• allow easy killing of devices.
  • having a method to remotely brick these communication devices would reduce the requirement for expensive jammers (which might also hinder communication of govt. forces)

Destroy local workshops at all expense. Skilled labour has to be separated from their tools. The workforce can easily be given the illusion of owning their means of production with 0 threat as long as a distance barrier can be maintained from their place of eating and living. Also, keep them poor enough to be unable to afford even cheaper, lower technology tools for personal use.

• This can be done by eating away at their market by providing cheaper competing products
  • The expenses for this can later be recouped by price gouging after elimination of competition. Furthermore, by reduction of costs (and quality).

Farmers need to be kept as far away from consumers of produce, as possible. This, on top of outlawing small home-farming, would make all major food usage, state-dependent, meaning that denying to cooperate with the government will ascertain starvation.

Control farm workability by first, destroying the sustainability of lower technology farming and then separating farming technology from the farmer, using aforementioned toll (control measures).
[Bonus: added after relevant research opened up feasibility] Make the very base of farming, dependent upon external powers. Use GMO crops to control farm input. This way even if the farmers become willing to use extremely low technology tools to farm, they will have nothing to grow.

• implement this as soon as possible. Pit neighbouring farmers against each other, if required
• Use the terminator gene to instil the sense of non-ownership in the farmer. It can be phased out once it is popularised enough. Meanwhile look for a more cost affective method to allow termination of subsequent crops.

That doesn't seem like a solvable thingy.
People tend to make stuff up, too. The difference being that the bluff is revealed in non-verbal communication.