You would be vulnerable on Windows, if you were running CUPS, which you probably are not. But CUPS is not tied to Linux, and is used commonly on e.g. BSDs, and Apple has their own fork for MacOS (have not heard anything about it being vulnerable though).

Wait, which list of filtered IPs are you even talking about? The list in the article is a list of unique kernel versions, not IPs.

I’m not sure why you say it’s “artificially” inflated. Non-linux systems are also affected.

this will affect almost nobody

Is that really true? From https://www.evilsocket.net/2024/09/26/Attacking-UNIX-systems-via-CUPS-Part-I/

Full disclosure, I’ve been scanning the entire public internet IPv4 ranges several times a day for weeks, sending the UDP packet and logging whatever connected back. And I’ve got back connections from hundreds of thousands of devices, with peaks of 200-300K concurrent devices.

As said, that’s a truism. What possible reason would one have to say it?

I honestly was wondering if the person also meant things thst are currently illegal when they said adults should be allowed to do “whatever”.

Saying “adults should be able to do whatever is legal” is a truism: you are by definition allowed to do anything that is currently legal, so it’s pretty pointless to write a message supporting that. Thus, me asking for clarification.

You are the one who stepped into the conversation, told me to join the military, and acted strangly aggressive.

Another poster said that adults shold be allowed to do “whatever”.

I asked if this “whatever” includes many things that are currently illegal, even if everyone involved consent to it.

You then told me to ask that question again after serving in the military, and i then told you that I already have served. Then you wrote a long anecdote that I honestly missed the point of.

You telling me that’s justified?

No, I’m not, and I’m not sure why you think I am.

I’ve already served in the military. What question am I supposed to ask again? Or do I need to re-enlist first? I’m not sure they would accept me at my age anymore.

But the point is that just because you are old enough to vote, doesn’t mean you are necessarily mature enough to make certain decisions.

One could well argue that if the reason we are not allowed to heroin is related to health, or crimes due to addiction, then an 18 yo should not be allowed to use it, but a 90 year old would. I would even argue that we might want to allow hard drugs to 80 year olds, who probably can take responsibility by then.

you are old enough to drink, own a gun and whatever else

Does that include e.g. doing hard drugs? Are you also allowed to e.g sell hard drugs, or e.g. potentially harmful products, such as power tools without certain currently legally mandated safety features if the buyer is an adult? Are you allowed to sign away certain rights that you are currently not allowed to sign away, e.g. should an adult be allowed to sign themselves over to slavery without the possibility to undo it?

What is that based on, though? Why a single age for everything, when it might make sense to have it more “targeted”. For example, wouldn’t it make sense to allow voting in local elections, where things are usually simpler and cause and effect clearer, at a younger age?

Similarly, why tie drinking regulations, which are based on physiology, to voting age, which has nothing to do with it? You may say it’s because if the person is mature enough to vote they can decide themselves, but there is a huge amount of things I’m not allowed to buy or consume even if I’m allowed to vote, so that argument doesn’t hold (unless you advocate 100% liberalization of everything).

Having just a single age limit just makes it all seem very arbitrary, which it shouldn’t be.

Is Yubico actually claiming it is more secure by not being open source?

Whether it’s a good thing or not depends entirely on your philosophical views. There is no objectively correct answer, and which arguments may convince someone very much depends on the values and perspectives of the person you are trying to convince.

It seems like a quite pointless discussion since you both seem to have already decided your minds.

They don’t accept your sources? Why? If they really are valid and they just cherry-pick sources, then there is no way of convincing them.

On the other hand, you also just seem to dismiss their counterarguments without much thought. If they can give a counterargument for your every argument, then maybe your arguments actually aren’t good?

there is no way to do the equivalent of banning armor piercing rounds with an LLM or making sure a gun is detectable by metal detectors - because as I said it is non-deterministic. You can’t inject programmatic controls.

Of course you can. Why would you not, just because it is non-deterministic? Non-determinism does not mean complete randomness and lack of control, that is a common misconception.

Again, obviously you can’t teach an LLM about morals, but you can reduce the likelyhood of producing immoral content in many ways. Of course it won’t be perfect, and of course it may limit the usefulness in some cases, but that is the case also today in many situations that don’t involve AI, e.g. some people complain they “can not talk about certain things without getting cancelled by overly eager SJWs”. Society already acts as a morality filter. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Free-speech maximslists exist, but are a minority.

Well, I, and most lawmakers in the world, disagree with you then. Those restrictions certainly make e.g killing humans harder (generally considered an immoral activity) while not affecting e.g. hunting (generally considered a moral activity).

So what possible morality can you build into the gun to prevent immoral use?

You can’t build morality into it, as I said. You can build functionality into it that makes immmoral use harder.

I can e.g.

• limit the rounds per minute that can be fired
• limit the type of ammunition that can be used
• make it easier to determine which weapon was used to fire a shot
• make it easier to detect the weapon before it is used
• etc. etc.

Society considers e.g hunting a moral use of weapons, while killing people usually isn’t.

So banning ceramic, unmarked, silenced, full-automatic weapons firing armor-piercing bullets can certainly be an effective way of reducing the immoral use of a weapon.

While an LLM itself has no concept of morality, it’s certainly possible to at least partially inject/enforce some morality when working with them, just like any other tool. Why wouldn’t people expect that?

Consider guns: while they have no concept of morality, we still apply certain restrictions to them to make using them in an immoral way harder. Does it work perfectly? No. Should we abandon all rules and regulations because of that? Also no.

But isn’t it obvious that if a presidential candidate promises some legislation, that it is contingent on the legislative branch?