It is weird that they use it as a national identification number, when they are ostensibly virulently against the concept, and it was never designed to be used in that manner to begin with.
The initial learning curve is very rough, since people might be used to commands from a newer editor like Notepad++, which doesn't work in vim.
nano at least says which button combination you need to exit, for example.
It is easier past the initial hump, though.
You can also use :x to write and quit, from memory.
They're also fairly versatile. y-i takes any symbol after. Space, comma, the letter p, you name it. If you can type it, it'll generally work.
Which can be a bit faster than some graphical editors at times, where you might have to find and select the contents by hand. That can be a bother if there's a lot.
It's like a better iPad in a way, since you could run full-scale desktop programs on it, and use it like a desktop.
I wouldn't be too surprised if things like surfaces were one of the reasons why Apple seems to be making a push to try and make the iPad functional as a computer on its own.
Nobody would pay to use the private system if they could get their needs met for free in the public system.
They might, if they thought there was an advantage to it. Like being seen more quickly, or getting a discount for something else.
If the entire world had access to free healthcare, chances are research and development would grind to a halt unless they also funded research and development. Taxpayers would need to be willing to pay a company hundreds of millions of dollars if they discovered a useful product.
I don't see why it would. A company would still invest in research if they thought they had a chance to sell it to the healthcare system, for example. It wouldn't be the first nor last time something like that happened, and the latter case isn't too different from how it works already.
Consider insulin, for example. Research into it and drugs for treatment of diabetes doesn't happen exclusively in the US.
I don't understand the point of sending the original e-mail. Okay, you want to thank the person who helped invent UTF-8, I get that much, but why would anyone feel appreciated in getting an e-mail written solely/mostly by a computer?
It's like sending a touching birthday card to your friends, but instead of writing something, you just bought a stamp with a feel-good sentence on it, and plonked that on.
The parallels between Musk and Stark seemed perfect on paper. Both are billionaire tech innovators with a flair for the dramatic and dreams of changing the world.
They're not, though. Stark is a rare engineering powerhouse who personally pushed past a lot of engineering boundaries, and Musk is an investor/programmer who mostly puts his name on existing things.
I might change my mind if Musk personally invents AGI, nanobots, and a previously-unknown clean energy source capable of powering a 1/3rd of NYC with a room no larger than a foyer, like Stark did, but I'm not holding out much by way of hopes.
What is a "trustworthy software environment"?
Does that mean that it will get mad and fail you for having Developer options enabled? Having F-Droid installed? Having it plugged into a computer?
You say that like A/S/L wasn't a thing back in the day.
The categories that they used for "sabotage" (Entering proprietary information into a different AI, using unapproved chatbots, and using low-quality AI responses as-is) seem like they're just put together so they can blame employees for sabotage for the failure of the AI rollout, rather than employers trying to wedge it onto a bad use case, or not rolling it out properly.
The first two just seem like the company having issues with people going straight to ChatGPT, and using that as-is, and the third seems to be more people not really caring and using the AI output as required.
None of that comes across as outright sabotage like the organisation or article the to imply. All three seem like reasonable end-points of telling people to use AI, and giving them metrics they need to meet, or a not-great interface, so they just go off and use a different AI thing, because it's all AI, and basically the same thing, right?