philipov

It would be all fine and good if they kept it non-commercial, but when you start charging money for it that's when you're stepping out of bounds. If they want to benefit from fair use, they should contribute their results back to the public domain. Getting it for free and then commercializing it is what's unethical.

Maybe you can't stop the car that way, but if you feel that kind of wind on your hand you should worry that your car is going fast.

Well, when was the last time you wrote machine code by hand?

... but then they went and changed what coding meant.

We've always been layering abstractions on top of abstractions. If we get to an abstraction that works well enough that you no longer have to dive down into the previous layer, we say we've solved coding, and change what coding means. Obviously LLMs aren't there yet.

The lie is in calling it a labor shortage without qualification. There won't be a shortage of all labor, just a highly specific class of labor, and everyone else will be left out.

Why would Trump's previous associations with the Democratic party prevent him from spiting someone else's associations with the Democratic party? That would require he not be a complete hypocrite. On the other hand, associating SBF with the Democrats makes them look bad. Why pardon an albatross around the neck of your enemies?

yeah, the useful thing about ublock isn't just that it stops ads from loading, but that it lets you remove unwanted divs. There are lots of unwanted divs that have nothing to do with ads, such as removing annoying Use Our AI buttons, or the Shorts section of youtube.

Does it stand for Censorship Management System?

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

remember AMP?

The future will certainly change things, but who can change the direction of a tidal wave? It will go where it wants, not where we want. The best a single individual can do is flee to higher ground.

Unless you happen to have a media empire at your disposal. Maybe then you can change the future. The problem is that those people are changing things for the worse.

AV obviously stands for Adult Video.

Now you've learned the advantage of knowing how to do things yourself. When you depend on untrustworthy agents, you shackle yourself to their idiotic whims. Be careful who you partner with.

What does it say, for those of us who can't use twitter?

An ad blocker handles this use case just fine, however. It's easy to create a rule to remove the div containing shorts. Also works on many Use AI buttons.

Sunk cost is sufficient friction for most people even without network dependence.

It was already necessary to solve the problem of humans contributing infringing code. It was solved by having contributors assume liability with a DCO. The policy being discussed today asserts that, because AI may not be held legally liable for its contributions, AI may not sign a DCO. A human signature is required. This puts the situation back to what it was with human contributors. What you are proposing goes beyond maintaining the status quo.

This policy effectively punts on the question of what tools were used to create the contribution, and states that regardless of how the code was made, only humans may be considered authors.

From the foundation's point of view, humans are just as capable of submitting infringing code as AI is. If your argument is sound, then how can Linux accept contributors at all?

EDIT: To answer my own question:

    Instead of a signed legal contract, a DCO is an affirmation that a certain person confirms that it is (s)he who holds legal liability for the act of sending of the code, that makes it easier to shift liability to the sender of the code in the case of any legal litigation, which serves as a deterrent of sending any code that can cause legal issues.

If you think it's an unacceptable risk to use a tool you can't trust when your own head is on the line, you're right, and you shouldn't use it. You don't have to guarantee anything. You just have to accept punishment.

GPL-2.0-only is the name of a license. One word. It is an alternative to GPL-2.0-or-later.

You take responsibility. That means if the AI messes up, you get punished. No pushing blame onto the stupid computer. If you're not comfortable with that, don't use the AI.

Unless one wishes to control the entire ecosystem rather than simply participate in it.

You are falling into the trap of thinking there's a single monolithic being called Software Developers that has inconsistent opinions. In fact, you're observing different people with conflicting values.

I also started at the other end, in the sense that from an early age and for the rest of my life I have spent a lot more time chatting over text than with spoken word.

I always understood it as advice for school children who don't know how to express themselves in writing and end up with a blank page. You are encouraged to imagine you're talking to someone to overcome the hurdle of translating thoughts into words.

I learned the opposite lesson and ended up talking like I write.

Yes, perl is considered write-only because it is a mess of features that allow unhygienic programming habits to flourish - it is full of hard-to-trace magical behavior. Completely different than APL, which has had perl's write-only label applied to it by programmers not used to reading terse mathematical notation.

Not to be confused with b programming language, which is not its succesor, but is the predecessor to c.

The more people use chargebacks to get around black hole customer service the better, because it is difficult for companies to blacklist everyone. If they don't want to pay the mediation fee, they should provide customer service in the first place.

I have that same book. It was a major source of inspiration when I was a kid.

I wish the people currently building the global terror nexus would have that mature realization.