FabCH

AFAIK the actual reason why „Software Engineer“ is ok is because it’s in English.

Pretending to be an „Ingenieur“ is illegal unless you have the paper to back it up. But it doesn’t necessarily have to be a university paper, there are older trade papers that also work.

FYI: Mechanical and hardware engineers, in the appropriate language of the country, are already protected engineering titles in a lot of European countries.

Calling yourself a „dipl. Ing. <X>“ would be a crime if you don’t possess the appropriate degree.

Little late to the party there Elon.

Most trucks I pass on the road daily are already electric in my part of Europe. Seems like all the big European companies, especially Mercedes, are pushing them out the door as fast as they can.

It shows opensource _usage_ will increase.

This entire discussion can be summarized as:

LLMs have speed development up so much, the difference between engineers and programmers is becoming too obvious to ignore.

Become an apprentice to one of those senior engineers with 30+ years of experience that is using it right.

We will have to adopt something that is normal in all other engineering disciplines. Just like civil engineers can’t sign off projects until they pass the exam and „years working for an engineer who can sign off on projects“ is an exam requirement.

I guarantee you that the winning song will play on repeat over and over again in every city in Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland irrespective of if they are competing, and people will still watch the circus from those countries. The whole "well we are not competing this year as a protest" is part of the joke.

That is the whole point. If you want to understand more, this song is genuinely a good explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv6tgnx6jTQ

And I'm not even joking.

There isn’t any. It was just a political statement from both sides that they are willing to give it a go, and broad lines were drawn.

There’s a meeting scheduled in Ottawa next month for the actual deal writing.

Because Eurovision is this cultural joke that unifies all of Europe in this yearly cultural moment of absolute madness.

And the EU treaties refuse to define what „European“ means, so using „watches Eurovision“ as a rule of thumb is surprisingly workable as a definition of where the borders of „Europe“ end.

Freedom of movement is more than just visa opt-out. It’s legally almost impossible for an EU country to prevent a citizen of a different EU country from moving there. They would need to arrest you for terrorism or something equally dramatic.

The ECJ has consistently ruled that the freedom of movement is very broad.

I know this because it creates an interesting corner case where Swiss citizens don’t have quite the same broad freedom of movement since ECJ rulings don’t automatically apply to non-EU citizens. For example, an EU citizen can move to Greece for no reason at all and just sit on a beach. A Swiss citizen cannot, and has to find work in 3-6 months or leave.

You are confusing the current „candidate members“ with the new „associate member“ that doesn’t exist yet and is basically something Canada will get first.

Among other things, they mentioned „recognition of professional qualifications“ in their speeches today, which is the first step in freedom of movement, so the direction is there.

Also, visa free is a third thing, which already exists for Canada/EU. Neither needs a visa to travel to the other.

That sounds like you are looking for the Ground News thing I get advertising for on every YouTube video.

You only need 100 000 signatures to start a referendum...

Fisheries are obviously not going to happen. They didn't happen with Iceland, they are not going to happen with Canada either.

Fair enough.

It’s what the newspapers report:

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/canada-alliance-eu-carney-2...

NATO, but also more importantly SAFE 2026.

Canada gets significantly better deal than any other non-EU country.

Jurisdiction of ECJ and boring normative stuff like languages on packing.

I missed the part where the UK was willing to give up all veto and voting rights and still have freedom of movement.

Both of which Canada is ok with.

Carney was asking for freedom of movement of goods, people and services, but without full monetary and legislative integration.

So, easier to sell stuff, easier to buy stuff, free to just travel to/from Canada/EU and work there with no extra paperwork, free to buy and sell service from Canada to EU and vice versa.

No Euro, no vote in EU, no ECJ, no payments into each others budget.

Tighter integration than UK, not as tight as Norway/Switzerland/Iceland.

Common defense was already agreed anyhow.

I can tell you this enjoys broad support in the EU public. Although, no joke, a lot of peoples first reaction is: "They need to compete in Eurovision first. Otherwise they should wait for Australia to join first."

Think of it this way:

It’s a fact that these scanners send unauthorized requests to servers whose owners did not consent to scanning.

If we think this is acceptable, which of the following is also acceptable, and if some is not, where is the difference:

1) Detecting the scan and notifying the ISP of the scanner that they are abusers

2) Notifying law enforcement and filing a formal complaint

3) Implementing passive defense measures and responding with a reverse slow loris attack where you trickle 1 response packet per minute down the pipe to attempt to DoS the scanner. But only to prevent them from accidentally hitting some innocent third party’s homemade wiki system that deletes content on GET requests. Not with any malice, just to help prevent harm to others.

4) Implementing active defense where you return progressively more hostile response starting with zip bombs and ending with whatever sota cyberweapon latest AI can give you. But only to shut down the scanner and not cause any damage what so ever. Simply to check if their security is up to par. You would of course report any detected vulnerabilities to the ISP of the scanner, to prevent criminals from using the same.

5) Actively responding with a scan of your own to any incoming scans.

I actually think that depending on jurisdiction it doesn’t even depend on the license.

I don’t think it is even possible to transfer the „moral right of attribution“ in some countries. So even if the license says so and the person is ok with it, the law takes precedence and Google’s actions are simply illegal.

There is a meaningful difference between „providing information to a country currently being attacked“ and „blowing stuff up in orbit“.

One is significantly more risk to the rest of the world than other.

Politely ask them to stop seems like a great idea to try first before you actively attack a space capable nuclear superpower!

I mean, the authors field in pyproject.toml has a very clear interpretation. Removing authors and adding yourself is a different thing than removing a todo.

Irrespective of the entire NOTICE file question, Apache license text is pretty clear that you MUST retain attribution notices, and I think most courts would consider the line "author = " to be a clear attribution notice.

And then there is the question of them slapping "Copyright Google LLC 2026" on every file. I'm not sure you can do that unless you have actually modified every file, and I think you have to say what exactly you modified and what is covered by the old copyright, and that presumably requires them to say what the old copyright is.

Surprisingly many people in the linked Reddit thread seem to think that open source license means Google can re-license the code and strip the author info.

Which is the one thing you absolutely cannot do.

[HYBRID - Human&AI collab]

Some time ago somebody posted an extensive list of things you can do to stop bots from aggressively getting your website, if you don’t want to hide behind Cloudfare.

I thought I’d make a nice UI for that:

https://github.com/ivankovic/stop-bots

As the original poster said at the time: don’t use on a production server!

That said, I’ve been using it on a production server for a month. It’s surprisingly efficient, and if you ban RU, US, IN and CN it’s extremely efficient.

Ok, but there is a massive difference between "I hammered my own CPU and found a bug that affects everyone" and "I hammered THE ENTIRE INTERNET and found some poor persons website that is not super secure and then I snitched on them to their ISP".

The first is a lot more legal and ethical than the second.

It is a good analogy because thieves stealing from one house successfully gives them resources and incentivizes them stealing from the same area again.

And even if you remove the analogy, ShadowServer means good, but good intentions doesn’t necessarily make their action moral or legal.

Yes, compromised servers can be used by hackers as means to commit crimes. But when these groups scan the entire internet, they do cause harm as well, as shown in the original linked article. Much less harm than a black hat, but they still waste time and resources from innocent third parties.

It’s fair to ask if the harm they cause is worth the good they do.

Yes.

I have personally done this before, the correct sequence of moves is:

1. Call your neighbor, ask for permission. 2. Check the door 3. Lock the door

If you don’t have their phone number, you are not on good enough terms to touch their lock.

Tesla isn’t doing the scanning though, instead somebody thinks they are scanning Tesla, but Tesla points them to someone else.

The scanner is likely illegal.

The pointing is… so stupid nobody thought to make a law about it.

Return a HTTP 301 pointing to https://facebook.com?

Might make them scan themselves instead.