The number of people who profess to care about user-replaceable batteries is absolutely baffling to me.

It would save you an $80 trip to the Apple Store (or non-Apple equivalent) every three or four years. What am I missing?

Well ... I don't have an Apple Store anywhere near me, so ... Or anything else, really.

And having multiple batteries would enable me to swap the battery and charge the expended one in near real time. No cord, no puck, nothing. And if the phone had an internal 100 or so mah battery also, I wouldn't even have to restart the phone!

But other than that, I don't really care.

> Are people showering and swimming with their phones or something?

Believe it or not, yes!

E-waste is a minuscule rounding error compared to all the other forms of environmental destruction modern industrial civilization causes. European countries are massive polluters and net carbon producers (though not quite as bad as the US); e-waste shouldn't even be on their radar since it is a distraction from almost infinitely more important environmental concerns. People complaining about this don't actually care about e-waste, they just talk about it because it's convenient for their argument.

Everything singled out is a minuscule form of environmental destruction, that's how they keep getting away with it

They're rare because outside of the tiny minority of people who complain loudly on HN, nobody cares about this feature.

Who is "they"? Linux isn't a person or an organization. The people (and organizations) contributing to Linux are all doing it for their own motivations to solve their own problems. You are asking them to make their lives harder, for free, in service of fixing an issue that they don't care about.

Linus Torvalds for one, but generally people in charge of the kernel have a principle of API/ABI compatibility outside the kernel, but no promise for API ABI stability for anything inside, including drivers.

That is great, they should also start ticketing human-driven cars that violate traffic laws too!

You can make AI/LLMs illegal, but other countries won't. There's a real risk as a country you fall behind economically if you ban what turns out to be the next big tech revolution.

Okay. Let China become more technologically advanced than us. I don’t care. Chinese tech companies being able to write software 20% faster than us is a less bitter pill to swallow than having to live in our current LLM world.

> I don’t understand why people act like we just have to submit to the AI revolution.

Some people are genuinely interested and excited about this new technology. Other people have an interest that the AI will succeed. At least on the surface it seems that these two groups are louder (or more successful) than the ones that oppose AI.

> We can make this technology illegal, and shut it down completely. Why don’t we?

Because there are not many (if any) lobby groups that pour money into making it illegal and also because of fear of not being left behind. There are also plenty of lobby groups that invest a lot of money into putting AI into everything.

the genie is out of the bottle.

no government on earth will make ai outright illegal. they are the perfect thing to shrug accountability onto, let alone all of the actual semi-useful reasons of keeping ai legal.

how would you even make it illegal? people have local models everywhere. if your country makes it illegal but mine doesnt, people from your country will just vpn and access them in my country. it would have to be a worldwide effort (lol).

If the government made it illegal it would just be for you and me. You can bet they'd still use it for mass surveillance processing, sorting people into buckets, AI generated propaganda, etc. And in the United States they'd be likely to leave carve outs for large corporations to continue to abuse it for advertising (including political), copyright laundering, automated price setting, etc. Like when Mattel got caught selling lead painted toys and congress passed legislation forcing all toys to be inspected but left Mattel exempt.

And then you'd still have to defend against AI powered scams (cloned voices, cloned video, bespoke scam campaigns directly targeted at individuals generated by AI with OSINT), social media bot campaigns, AI generated black mail or harassment including deepfakes, etc because that stuff is already largely illegal and either ignored or not feasible to police as it happens across international borders.

We make child porn illegal which is even easier to copy than local LLMs. It doesn’t work perfectly, of course there are people who still have it, but we could dramatically reduce the number of people with local LLMs if we punished possession with long prison sentences.

i am sorry, i was trying to take you seriously, but you completely lose me at comparing an llm to child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and suggesting possession of an llm should be met with similarly long prison sentences. that is absurd.

a central tenet of justice is that the punishment fits the crime. for CSAM, it is obvious why extremely long prison sentences are fitting. the damage CSAM causes is immense and hard to even capture with words.

the damage llms cause is... not even close.

Punishment is not only tied to the harm done by the crime, it’s also tied to difficulty of enforcement. For laws that are relatively easy to break without getting caught, you need severe penalties or everyone will just ignore them.

No, only lawmakers can make things illegal and only if their personal incentives align so they are better off from making those things illegal.

Because lots of people, businesses and governments don't want to.

My impression is that The majority of people do want to.

When has that ever mattered?

My impression is that, seeing the rising AI use rates everywhere, that you are in a bubble.

Could be me too, but seeing China's general societal infatuation with AI outpace the US by orders of magnitude, I think that's a bit less likely.

then you're just thinking in a very naive way.

you'd need everybody to be onboard, be it your neighbor, the guy 8000 miles away from you on the other side of the planet, all the nations

if even one goes "well ill just keep going" it won't work.

it's like with nuclear weapons, nobody wants to be the one without them unless nobody else has them, so in the end they're still prevalent.

> On the other hand, there are too many less-experienced Rust fans who do claim that "Rust" promises this

Link some comments like this? Because I've been reading Rust discussions for years and never seen them.

I have never seen a comment claiming that Rust leads to magically completely bug free programs.

Could you please link one? Because I doubt it exists, or if it does, it is probably on some obscure website or downvoted to oblivion.

On the other hand, I see comments in every Rust thread that are basically restatements of yours attacking a strawman.

The reality: Rust does not prevent all bugs. In fact, it doesn't even prevent any bugs. What it actually does is make a certain particularly common and dangerous class of bugs much more difficult to write.

I agree it’d be nice if there were a safe stdlib openat API, but

> If I have to use unsafe just to open a file, I might as well use C.

is a ridiculous exaggeration.

I agree it is an exaggeration in that of course you could write a wrapper. The point was that if everyone had to write their own FFI wrappers, Rust wouldn't go far and openat is not an exception.

There is code available at the right level of abstraction (the rustix or openat crates), and while it's not managed by the Rust team, uutils already have many third party dependencies. Bringing up libc just because it's first party, instead, is comparing apple to oranges.