AI ( Artificial Intelligence ) just a few decades ago meant a robot or a computer that has human-like thinking. Think of HAL 9000, or the robots in I Robot. All of those things were "AI".
Today any remotely automatic algorithm on the planet is labeled with this nonsensical term.
In this article I will present an argument that explains why seemingly everybody is on the Epstein files. And how you can use this logic to demolish reputation of pretty much anybody else as well. If you have any political goal what so ever, stay tuned. It is very simple. ( NOTE: I'm not trying to discredit the severity of the situation. I propose that the situation, just might be, a bit more severe than we think. )
Age Verification is the new anti-terrorism. The trojan-horse of legal bullshit designed to strip the public from their rights, claiming it is for the greater good. But why this? Why now? I suppose I want to process the way I see it via a play. It will have very strange names, like Publicus ( that represents the public ).
With today's seeming apocalypse it is easy to give up all hope, to feel hopeless. Age-Verification, Chat Control and other ( usually ageist ) attempts at attacking our freedom seem to be overwhelming at their might. And while it is true that they are terrible things and that they are bad for our freedom, still they are not the end of the world. There is still hope.
It records the teachings, opinions and disagreements of thousands of rabbis and Torah scholars.
And if you know from books like Tanya which references the book of Nida on the first page, in the first paragraph, in the first sentence, you know that Talmud likes to link things Wikipedia style, and then argue those things, trying to find patterns.
What could be the pattern in linking a Wikipedia article and then talking about Wikipedia in an article about using Talmudic Techniques to understand Free Software?
There is a certain trend, or more like a curse, among film-makers that suggests, that by movie number 4 there is a moment of the film-maker going completely insane. Steven Spielberg's 4th theatrical film was 1941, which is one of the most unhinged things he ever did. Damien Chazelle's 4th film was Babylon, which is arguably equally unhinged. So I suppose let's analyze this phenomenon. But for the fun of it, I will make this analysis using the new feature I just added to the markdown parser of this website.
Assembly Bill No. 1043 of the State of California forces every operating system vendor to implement an age verification system on "account setup". I guess it's time to break the text of it down and rant a pissed-off rant about how stupid it is. Shall we?
An article by Troler about Libre Software made me remember an email conversation I had with Richard Stallman the other day. I suggested to have a sort of freedom ladder analogue, to encourage non-libre software developers to, at least, move closer towards user-freedom. I thought ranking software based on how close they are at achieving user-freedom. How close they are to being Libre. If they have source code published, but no license. This is still better than having no source code published at all. Stallman firmly stood his ground against my idea, claiming that anything less than Libre, anything less than software that grants all 4 essential freedoms to the user, is automatically not good enough. But then in that article by @Troler I saw something interesting. Maybe merely granting the 4 essential freedoms, might be not good enough, either.
Telling a story of the difficulties I went through to model this one building in Blender. The cringe, and the trauma and all of the bleeding in between.
I don't consider freedom binary, for me some things are inherently more free than others. Here I define freedom as the capacity to do a task unhindered. With such definition, it comes to be clear, what I mean by freedom not being binary and existing on an axis. For instance, repairing a standard PC is easier than the newest model of iPhone. This ease of repairability exists on a gradient, with the PC and iPhone being on different sides. The same applies to the actual binary, software world as well. It is easier to modify a program written in Python than the same one written in C. In Python there is no need to keep recompiling and seeing the changes, all alterations can be done on the fly.
There are two types of people. One type of people is following the ideas called "Open Source" and another one follows the ideas of "Free Software". There is a third concept that I will hope to explain in this article, called "Paternalism", that in my opinion is the dividing force between the two camps of people.
Both "open source" and "free software" mean, in terms of software itself, largely the same thing. The source code is published. The project is developed by a community of people. The project is forkable. Many pieces of software are both "free software" and "open source" in the same time. But when you dig into the details of their definitions, you start to see differences.
While James Cameron has denied that Avatar 3: Fire and Ash used any generative AI. On January 24, 2026 Joe Letteri ( the visual effect supervisor from Weta Digital ) sat with the Corridor Crew for their weekly show of VFX Artists React where he said that the facial animation for the hero characters for both Avatar 2 and 3 involved a neural network. A neural network? Isn't that a fancy way to say "AI"?