Always has been! Lots of math/ML/regressions already being used to make kill decisions: homing missiles, kamikaze drones, naval defense/sentries. All use a combination of computer vision, signal classification, predictive tracking. LLMs just the latest solved math problem.
Not only was what we built essentially, a scout-to-kill drone, it was also built on a ton of tracking literature which was basically built to track things to kill. No matter how far back you go, the military has always been a huge player (supply or demand side) in R&D.
Lol the CEO of Palantir already bragged that occasionally his enemies have to be killed.[]
It's honestly wild watching companies with common investors, and when you dig into the details, their executives are bragging about killing their enemies. And then people argue that when surveillance is used to systematically individually stalk all of us it's magically not illegal, even though if you did that to a bunch of your ex girlfriends tracking all their movements to work and the grocery store and argued 'muh free speech to record' your ass would be in jail lickity split because there is a big difference between recording the public and stalking people while conspiring with people who are literally bragging about the killing of their enemies.
CEO of Palantir looks like he does lines of coke in the bathroom before speaking. I don't know if anything that cokehead says can be taken seriously or true.
The year of that earnings call the stock went up 5x. He could have walked up naked and given an hallucinogenic induced speech and his investors would have lapped it up. This was a moment where a CEO was able to actually speak his mind without reproach. A rare glimpse where you learn what these surveillance companies are actually thinking.
It's a matter of scale. If you only do it to one or a few ex girlfriends you'll get thrown in jail. As long as you do it to enough of them simultaneously everything is okay.
You don't lower the cost of killing by improved targeting, you lower it by thugs shooting people in broad daylight with no consequences.
I understand the argument that moving the decision making power to a black box would clear conscience of the operator, yadda yadda yadda, but newsflash, price of human life is falling so quick, that I think we're far beyond the point where it matters.
No, I'm not kidding. Some people need to be killed. Look at all the "collateral damage" when America kills people that need to be killed. Could AI help let us kill the people who need a killing, without killing the people who shouldn't be killed?
I don't know. I use a lot of Swift and C++ and while both are OK languages there is an absurd amount of complexity in these languages that doesn't seem to serve any real purpose. Just a lot of foot traps, really.
Coming back to Plan9 from that world is a breeze, the simplicity is like a therapy for me. So enjoyable.
If "modern" means complex, I don't think it fits Plan9.
I don't know about Swift, but in C++, the complexity serves at least three purposes:
1. Backwards compatibility, in particular syntax-wise. New language-level functionality is introduced without changing existing syntax, but by exploiting what had been mal-formed instructions.
2. Catering to the principle of "you don't pay for what you don't use" - and that means that the built-ins are rather spartan, and for convenience you have to build up complex structures of code yourself.
3. A multi-paradigmatic approach and multiple, sometimes conflicting, usage scenarios for features (which detractors might call "can't make up your mind" or "design by committee").
The crazy thing is that over the years, the added complexity makes the code for many tasks simpler than it used to be. It may involve a lot of complexity in libraries and under-the-hood, but paradoxically, and for the lay users, C++ can be said to have gotten simpler. Until you have to go down the rabbit hole of course.
AFAIK there is no Rust compiler for Plan 9 or 9front. The project is using a dialect of C and its own C compiler(s). I doubt adding Rust to the mix will help. For a research OS, C is a nice clean language and the Plan 9 dialect has a some niceties not found in standard C.
If you really want Rust, check this https://github.com/r9os/r9 it is Plan 9 reimplemented in Rust (no idea about the project quality):
R9 is a reimplementation of the plan9 kernel in Rust. It is not only inspired by but in many ways derived from the original Plan 9 source code.
There isn't, though you can run it over wasm on it. I tried it a while back with a port of the w2c2 transpiler (https://github.com/euclaise/w2c9/), but something like wazero is a more obvious choice
It is kind of interesting that C inventors, contrary to the folks that worship C, not only did not care about ANSI/ISO compatibility, they ended up exploring Aleph, Limbo and Go.
While Bell Labs eventually started Cyclone, which ended up influencing Rust.
I think recycling and upcycling are good practices. With them, you can build missile, drone tracking systems and water irrigation systems, smartwear and other control for almost nothing.
Yeah and if you have your cell phone with you, license plates readers are irrelevant.
Fun fact, the Austin bomber was caught because publically available user data used for advertising, as gathered by a bunch of 3d party apps, allowed a cross reference of cellphones in vicinity within certain time ranges, which narrowed the suspect pool to very few people from which they were able to start their investigation.
