Hacker News Reader

Comment by zelphirkalt | Hacker News Reader

Are you consciously choosing to completely ignore large parts of Codeberg's explanations, regarding the amount of traffic they get from one-man LLM shows, and additionally completely fail to consider the type of organization, that Codeberg is, in order to label this as merely virtue signaling?

View on HN

Sure but wouldn’t the sensible rule be implementing a user rate limit?

I think that can be argued for, yes.

I would fear it’s too little too late. If the concern was the frequency and utilization of resources from agents coding that would have been the instant and fair fix. As it stand it’s a statement about AI usage which is fine but I think the better alternative would be to start a new nonprofit service that was unbiased.

> Are you consciously choosing to completely ignore

Yes. Let me stop you right there: Yes, absolutely. Whatever they claim their reasons are, it's not my problem. I don't care.

The last Codeberg story that popped up here just this week was something about them banning Bitcoin. At that pace you should worry whether you're next.

Which is why my advice is: Avoid the headache. Go somewhere else.

I get your point but by your own reasoning here you can't ignore these things because you are also choosing to be principled in your own way here, right? Like you need to know, at the very least, what to avoid if you absolutely must steer clear of all the politics you hate right? Like if you don't even know and choose not to know, how will you have the early warning that the SaaS is gonna ban your hypothetical crypto repo?

You can't let your strong principles get in the way of being practical in this kind of world! It's kinda impossible to be as absolute as you want to be but also have your head-in-the-sand about it. You kinda gotta pick one of those..

At the very least, just not a good look from the outside IMO.

One helpful way to think about is to what extent your principles are rooted in emotions or rigidity, or whether your principles are rooted more in realism and practicality.

Put differently: are you making decisions based on principles that are crafted with the goal of CHANGING the world? Or are you making decisions based on principles that are crafted to NAVIGATE a dynamic, fuzzy, ever-changing world?

In your mind, why are the second kinds of things here not "criteria" or "heuristics"?

(Also you can enclose things in * to emphasize on this site btw. There is a little grey 'help' next to the comment box.)

> why are the second kinds of things here not "criteria" or "heuristics"?

I think you're asking why I call the heuristics for navigating the world "principles"?

Principles come in 3 distinct flavors:

a) Rule of conduct. The standard you hold yourself to regardless of circumstance or convenience. Examples can be honesty, fairness, loyalty, or non-violence.

b) Organizing idea in a field. General concept that explains or governs range of specific cases. They're not moral rules, they're explanatory or decision-making frameworks.

c) Foundational truth or law. Basic proposition that underlies a system of thought. E.g. conservation of energy is principle that isn't proven within the system but a foundation the rest of the system is built on. Axioms play the same role in logic or mathematics.

In this thread, I'm using principles in the (b) sense, whereas I think the author of the article and some of the sentiment in the discussion anchor on the (a) sense.

In practice, one has to find a balance you can live with between (a) and (b), since they can be in tension.

Hm OK, thanks for the lesson here. To be clear, it kinda seems like in your original comment you are using both the (a) and (b) senses, but just making a prescriptive point about (b), right?

I think in this schema, I am still saying a good (b) principle for anyone is probably something like "have knowledge of the (a)s of things and people you depend on, so you can know if any of your other (b)s might cause some conflict down the line".

> Put differently: are you making decisions based on principles that are crafted with the goal of CHANGING the world? Or are you making decisions based on principles that are crafted to NAVIGATE a dynamic, fuzzy, ever-changing world?

Why would the latter be better than the former ?

Yeah, it's pretty clear that they're instituting rules that they haven't thought about deeply, and they just need to reduce traffic by any means necessary, and they'll use any excuse they can to minimize traffic, whether that's banning LLM code because it could be malicious and has unclear copyright status, or any other reason that they can come up with. The fact that their terms of use don't match up with their blog post about it demonstrates this pretty clearly.

But I don't have a horse in this race. I self-host my code using Fossil.

>> Are you consciously choosing to completely ignore > Let me stop you right there: Yes

Reading this in text is unreasonably funny. Thanks for the chuckle

> The last Codeberg story that popped up here just this week was something about them banning Bitcoin. At that pace you should worry whether you're next.

No. LLMs and blockchain are the same kind of shit.

What do you mean by no? Can you read their minds? Their reputation suggests that, yes, they’ll likely block something else.

Your words betray your prejudice, nothing more.

There's a thing called reputation. It has nothing to do with prejudice.

What you call "reputation" is just your prejudice.

That's just your bullshit. Reputation exists and words have meanings, regardless of your opinion on that.

Reputation is collective prejudice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com