With the author and de facto owner being a translator who says it isn’t enough. He is dependent on engagement more than anything else I suspect.
To be clear: I’m not suspecting him of having been bought to write this - but he clearly has a hate boner for anything AI, isn’t from a software background and wrote an opinion piece with several statements that a re factually incorrect to reinforce a point he’s trying to create to get exactly posts like this.
“AI is a tool for maintainers” says Linus and everyone’s losing their shit it seems.
I wonder whose money is behind this article, redefining some of the biggest overall tech companies in the world, all highly dependent on Linux, as “AI companies”.
Just curious, what makes you think this is a lot?
Red cross, doctors without borders, Firefox are three that jumped into my mind. I don’t know their legal constructs in detail but Médecins Sans Frontières in their finance report 2024 described half a billion in available assets.
The Linux Foundation is quite small compared to the amount of projects they coordinate in my opinion and I’m surprised to read that you perceive this amount as a lot - that’s why I’m curious where your feeling comes from! (Note: im trying to learn,not bias to “it’s not a lot” is quite weird to me as well, talking about millions of dollars after all)
So called root servers are registered with the IANA. They are basically the seeds for the federation. There are rules what these root servers need to do and how they can be queried - and from those few servers it gets spread around the world - but not federated as in “everyone can write back”, there are rules who can add what when.
They also tell who owns top level domains (.com, .net, .de, etc). The other replier is wrong: they do not sell individual domains.
Oi boy!
The very short answer is: yes. Usually it’s called psychological biases and literally everyone has them - even people who are studying them daily, to be very clear. They just become way more self aware.
The reason is simple: our brains are gooey, bad calculators - but awesome pattern recognizers. Even if there are no patterns.
This leads to things we observe to be “clear” to us - but our own behavior needs a lot of mental effort to be observed by one self.
Just think about a normal dialogue and try to think about your body language, tone of voice, body odor, social appearance and all the other micro information you’re sending out - while talking.
It’s less about a double standard and more about what we evaluate about ourselves ehwne not investing additional effort.
Yes and it’s a personal benchmark of mine for a doctor how they talk about pain - because this is by now such well studied that I don’t understand how people like OP described are still allowed to do what they’re doing.
I can just tell you that it’s not universal: several doctors I’ve seen and know are very cautious when it comes to pain - both from own experience (“we will go strong with the pain killers for the best two days to prevent stress reaction from the body”) to others (“we need to get the chronic pain under control fast, otherwise there’s the risk of phantom pain developing even after we’ve tackled the issues”) (not verbatim quotes of course but the gists).
It might not even be US generic but a regional or age thing in the doctors you’ve met - remember that usually everyone one of us has only a very limited insight into the whole medical industry.
I’m similar to you in terms of pain tolerance and I’ve walked away from a doctor who talked shit about pain in patients - but I’ve head way better experiences before so that didn’t feel like I’m being stuck with this one medical “professional”.
Wishing you the best of luck though! It’s absolutely terrible when people don’t take you seriously, especially if it’s their job to help you :(
You miss the consumption pattern behind streaming though: I don’t want (and literally can’t afford to) …
This is not intended to take away from your core point: (direct) purchase is a better way of giving money to artists, second only to direct donations (i can’t talk about concerts because of the whole venue discussions I’ve heard on the side).
Now comes the tough part:
On paper it’s straight forward for me: just donate like 10 or 20 bucks a month to your personal flavor of the month - but … To whom? I just checked, today alone were 20 artists played.
The shitty thing is, and I’m sharing this to perhaps shame me into acting: this is quite easily solvable, but I just don’t invest the energy needed to figure it out for me.
Sorry for the long rant style, tldr is:
I have no use for owning albums, streaming provide a true value for me and I’m (realizing after writing this) obviously too cheap, stupid and lazy to give bak.
Though this is a severe exploit, note that you need already user access to the machine to use it.
Dor like … Everyone here who learns from it cis this need it’s likely a non issue. Still good practice to fix but if you didn’t share your user space this will not be the attack vector you will fall victim to - most likely.
That’s sich a Mac answer it’s unbelievable.
Describing “A project aimed to be agnostic of it’s environment” as a design mistake and not a inherent flaw of the OS is… Just wow.
Remember in this thread it’s about the pro and con of Macos as interference hardware. This is a major flaw which comes baked into the hardware. I tested it and find it an unacceptable limitation. It’s important for others to know.
To state “containerization is the issue” though… Just wow.
Depends what you want to do… For example I didn’t get python whisper in a container to run on Mac in any way that can be called “performance” and I don’t want my dev workflow to optimize for an OS I despise :D
What you are describing is neoliberalism in its base form. If you want to dice deeper I to it I suggest Saez instead of some 16th hundred philosopher. (I’m not too familiar with Lockes work, this is more about time than profession or person).
The reason why taxation works different than contract agreements is basically:
Taxes are used as normalization tool, both in the fiscal as well as the social sense.
In general you have three categories of tax: based on purchase, based on possession and based on income.
Most modern countries use all three in a combination. The reason why it’s not purpose linked is simple: you can’t organize it.
To give an example: How much worth does a future tax payer? And who benefits?
Based on the answer to that question you’d either tax consumption (because future tax payers will keep cost low), income (because production facilities for future tax payers is taken from the workforce) or possession (because future tax payers are the foundation of generational transfer).
And on top of that comes the big question of social normalizing effects: even very conservative counties tax higher incomes higher than low incomes to improve the overall Gini coefficient, i.e. achieve a bit of wealth distribution. Now you’re fully in “opinion” country though: How much should society pay for its weakest or unluckiest?
And because it’s not yet complicated enough there’s one very simple element coming on top: “what can we get away with?”. Rules, especially if taxation, are only meaningful if they can be enforced.
German highways for example have a dedicated tax for heavy transports for using those roads exactly the model you’ve described. 50 years ago that would’ve been technologically impossible to realize there.
Now using a sidewalk as an exame and it becomes messy. Because the people directly using them would be the obvious choice. But what about the shops closeby which profit from foot traffic? What about the reduction in micro plastic pollution because those people don’t use cards (which produce about 1/3 of it). What about my body weight? I’m fat and will damage the ground a very tiny bit more than someone who’s half my weight. And what about paramedics using it? The rulebooks and exceptions will be either: broad and easy to abuse, broad and they will exclude many people from using the infrastructure or narrow which brings both at the same time.
To come back to your example: you pay for school because it’s the one institution that makes sure that our economy will work a few years down the road, having new consumers and taxable incomes which are needed for me to continue, well, existing. And you do have a verbal agreement: “I’m choosing to stay in the place I am”. This binds you to its laws, including taxation.
Now if you argue that you’d just want to keep what’s yours then usually just looking one generation back already makes that break apart: where did your parents income and education come from, what social structures did they benefit from, etc.
But: All of this is not intended as “taxes are good as-is”. A) I have no idea what your frame of reference is and B) it’s not in my opinion. But it’s complex. Really really complex because the whole system changes depending on reference timeframe, social norm and the societies past and present goals.
Again: depends on the legal system that statement is not that easy in that generic form.
Ik specifically thinking about the situation in which a human no longer can communicate what they want:
In Germany there is the legal concept of transferring this kind of decision power in case you yourself are no longer able to do that. The “pulling the plug” situation: the individual can no longer state their wishes directly concerning the situation but left a binding document who has the decision power in their stead.
Now you could argue that this also is “the human has to want it” as they wanted the other person to have this life and death power.
As someone else said: helping humans find a dignified death is legal in some countries.
Your second point is more complicated though: I don’t know the laws in a lot of countries but where I’m from animals are strictly treated as property - emotional connection isn’t taken into strong consideration at all when it comes to assessing their value when it comes to legal fights but they are treated like a distinct thing different from both humans and objects in a lot of other cases (e.g. dedicated laws like “unnecessary” animal cruelty is forbidden ).
About the reason you can discuss as much as you want, the two arguments I’ve stumbled across are:
there must not be a distinction in terms of value because that value must be purely subjective and cannot be assessed.
There is no objective way to classify animals based on emotional connection and therefore the law can’t create categories.
Culturally we treat animals like different to humans all the time - even your dog is not treated “family” to the extreme a child would (think of child protection laws and what that would mean if they’d apply to a dog or a hamster). And now expand this to find a definition which covers both a cow someone has as a beloved pet or a meat animal.
Note that I’m trying to not say wether this is “right” or “wrong”: morale categories and laws have some overlap but they are quite lose as soon as you get specific.
My primary source was an interview with a judge who went into an hour long discussion about how complex the relation between animals and the law is and how “emotional connection” and the need for the law to be objective and repeatable are an inherent contradiction.
In short:
It’s a very tough question because there isn’t the one correct answer. Law, morality and personal subjectivity collide and make a mess out of us.
Hey,
Person here who despises electron apps in part because of the memory footprint and in part because I don’t like neither chromium nor node.js - personal preference mainly.
From your description I have the feeling that it’s unclear to your user base if electron is set or up to debate. There is only a thin line between “explaining” and “defending”.
In terms of communication: “We’re using electron as foundation because it allows us to focus on development. We’ve considered alternatives like Tauri and XYZ and opted in favor of electron.”
If there are situations that might make you rethink state those as well (“if someone provides a proof of concept via XYZ that an alternative is faster by y% while enabling us to still use (your core libraries and languages) we might consider a refactor.”
If you’d engage with me after an electron rant on your codebase you’d just raise my hope that I might change your mind! Don’t give people hope, don’t feed the trolls and do your thing!
Just please be honest with yourself: your app doesn’t use “50 to 60 MB”, it uses 500MBish on idle because of your choice. And that’s okay as long as you as developer say that it is.
Oh yeah! It’s sad that users have to have a technical education to use the Internet if laws and what at least I perceive as “right” fundamentally differ.
At least for the moment it’s only copy right for me personally - there are countries and laws where this need is way more fundamental :(
No it doesn’t. Because it’s not an opinion but a description on how to not get into the situation you’ve described - i.e. about personal security.
What I’ve described prevents a link between you and your online actions - that’s the whole point. It’s the defense against surveillance and can be applied on situations with way higher risk than just a fine.
Yeah that’s way more specific and can get behind - I don’t even test any “free” VPNs.
I didn’t intend to imply that VPNs are free.
“most of them are (if advertised heavily)” is quite a claim without data to back it up.
At least for the one I tested none of them sent additional traffic over my connection. That’s just one data point and I only looked to ones with port forwarding but still far away from your claim.
There are a shitload of VPN tests out there and testing id your connection gets used by third parties for not traffic is even possible for a layperson.
Please stop fear mongering without remedies or specifics.
Yeah makes sense! I find it weird personally that I can go “oh yeah 7mio that’s not a lot” but at the same time “2 bucks for an ice cream scoop are you out of your fucking mind?!”