jamesravey

There have already been studies showing that this gradual swing to the right no longer holds for millennials.

The original premise that psychopathy affects a proportion of any population is true though.

In the early years Boston was essentially Tom Scholz who played pretty much all of the instruments on their demo tape of course with Brad on vocals (RIP). Then they had to go out and hire a band to actually tour with!

I dunno, I mean are the train company allowed to take my money and then go "sorry we fell out with the fuel company so we're just gonna keep your money and not take you to your destination. Soz babe x"

Seems like the lawyer thinks that AI models deliberately jumble the Disney logo rather than specific text/artifact/logo generation just being a weakness of these types of models. (He's wrong, he's attributing intent to something janky/buggy)

No one is suggesting that open source is inherently less secure

Unfortunately, I've met a number of people who genuinely do believe this! The same demographic who don't know how copy and paste works or take photos of stuff on their monitor instead of print-screening and tend to end up running large corporations even though they're completely out of touch.

There is also a lot of "security by obscurity" in the corporate/fintech world - "it's open source so everyone can see the code which makes it less secure". The inverse is often true thanks to Linus's Law.

Came for this joke

I think I watched the same one. I think the three seashells will revolutionise the bathroom experience.

This is as transparent as hell. It reminds me of a TV show where a bunch of idiots plot to murder someone so they decide that if they all pull the trigger together, none of them are "technically" the murderer. Of course, that just meant they were all culpable.

It's only a few layers of abstraction above "we didn't ban these books, we flipped a coin to decide whether to ban them and fate chose tails..."

Pathetic.

As Larry Tesler once said "AI is whatever hasn't been done yet."

I used to agree until I saw corporations starting to fork open source projects to run them internally like the "I made this" meme.

If I spend months or years of my life toiling over a project and license it permissively with MIT or such, they can just swoop in one day and take it for free and be like "thanks, we're going to make mega bucks off your code and give you nothing" (and yes this does happen https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-aws).

No, screw that! I'm gonna make my stuff AGPL and those guys can damn well pay me for my time of they want to use my stuff or more cynically, do it anyway or go and reimplement it themselves in-house knowing damn well I can't afford an army of lawyers to actually do anything about it.

Counter counterpoint: Often frontend js code is minified so that it is smaller and more efficient to transfer to the browser. For FOSS projects you should still be able to get access to that code, unminified, from the project git repo. In the same way desktop apps often ship as binary executables but you can still see the code that was compiled to build them if you find the source repo.

It does make things harder to debug for an average user but it makes it faster/more efficient to run for most end users (in the case of the desktop or phone app it makes it possible to run without needing compiler toolchains that mom and pop likely wouldn't be able to grasp).

The key thing isn't that what the end user's computer runs is readable and editable but whether the code used to build that artifact is available easily and what restrictions there are on editing and redistributing that code.