Hendrikto

> it takes me literally 20 seconds sometimes to finish a $20+ burger, and then I'm just sitting there waiting for people to delicately nibble their way through

Honestly, that sounds like a you problem. Maybe try eating instead of guzzling. You may even find time to enjoy the food.

> the fact you cannot define custom methods for external types in Go

Just wrap them. The external type is theirs. Make your own wrapper and do whatever you like with it.

People want every language to adapt to them, instead of adapting themselves to the language.

We should oust and shun anybody being caught producing or spreading fake science. This is some of the most egotistical, anti-social behavior imaginable.

> To change a column definition you have to manually update the underlying schema using the `writable_schema` pragma. If you mess this up you can be left with a corrupt database.

No you don’t [0]. It is less convenient than being able to directly alter columns, but you do not need to mess around with writable schemas or risk corruption.

[0]: https://www.sqlite.org/lang_altertable.html#otheralter

Is it really a vacation if you have to spend it with your work colleagues?

To everybody else being confused: This is about Unity the game engine, not Unity the desktop environment.

Brazil maybe?

My advice, as somebody who has a master’s degree, is to pick a topic that you are really interested in, and that captures your imagination. You will have to dedicate yourself to this work for a considerable amount of time.

Doing a CV-driven master thesis will be miserable and more likely to fail. It should be something that is fun and captivating.

In my experience, systemd is much better documented, way more consistent, and way more reliable than what came before.

> We can replace the endless and useless discussion on how to format code with an endless and useless discussion on what linting tool to use.

That is why gofmt is so great. As the saying goes: gofmt’s style is nobody’s favorite, yet gofmt is everybody’s favorite.

> 20+ years of software engineering experience across full-stack, backend, infrastructure, Site Reliability Enigneering, and AI engineering. Past work includes Uber, Airbnb, Canva, and a wide variety of startups - several of which I co-founded.

> I'd never have never found these myself.

You are either the most experienced most incompetent software engineer in the world, or you are lying.

Give it an hour or two. It is really not that complicated. A little bit of investment will pay huge dividends. Do yourself the favor.

Read the comment again. I address this directly.

And I never claimed that it was. Stop attacking that strawman.

My point is: Codeberg is not a neutral and free git forge. I wish that it was.

What they are doing is completely within their legal and moral rights. I just disagree with it.

I do not think you get the point.

Yes, human rights should apply to anybody, including war criminals. That is what makes them HUMAN rights.

Universal freedoms and neutrality should apply universally, including to waste-of-time-and-resources AI slop. That is what makes them UNIVERSAL and NEUTRAL.

> It is like saying Gmail shouldn't delete spam, but instead, should apply a limit of 1 message per day per destination per source address to all messages.

I said a REASONABLE limit should be applied. 1 message is not reasonable and you know yourself that this is a bad faith argument if you are honest.

1k messages on the other hand would be a reasonable limit. There is pretty much no legitimate use case for sending more than that to any specific address from any specific destination in a single day.

It is also bad faith because Gmail never claimed to be free or neutral.

Yes, but the world is not black and white. It’s all shades of gray. Codeberg just darkened their shade quite a bit.

Exactly.

> The line is open to interpretation precisely where it needs to be enforceable.

It is way too arbitrary and open to interpretation and biases.

Fully agree. I am against AI slop, LLM overhyping, and cryto scams, as much as anybody, however:

> the main property I need from infrastructure [is for] it to be predictable, dependable, and reasonably neutral towards the legal Open Source software hosted on it.

I do not like to build on a foundation that could be ripped away from under my feet at any moment for arbitrary reasons.

Simple: Provide the same freedoms to everybody. Do not get involved unless absolutely required to by law. That entails not restricting access for specific projects, and not revoking freedoms for any reason. Everybody should get the same treatment.

For example, in the case of being overloaded by AI contributions, a neutral solution would be to implement the same rate-limiting for every project. Set a sensible limit, and enforce it universally. Do not discriminate specific projects.

I have made it VERY clear that I am talking about FREEdom, not the price. I have to assume your comment is in bad faith.

> You think Stallman and Torvalds did what they did because they were neutral?

Is that a joke? Both have made it abundantly clear that yes, this is their stance. Let me quote literally the FIRST freedom RMS put into writing:

> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.

This is explicitly free and neutral. "for any purpose", no restrictions. Linus endorsed this stance by licensing the kernel under GPLv2, and has repeatedly upheld this view ever since, making the argument again and again that he does not want to restrict what people do with the project.

Even in his famous announcement message, before adopting GPL, Linus said:

> I'm doing a (free) operating system

Then he licensed Linux with his own free license, before adopting GPL.

> Full source must be available (and free)

Freedom is and has always been important to both RMS and Linus.

> If I dont like the direction an open source project is taking and I fork it. Does make it less free?

No. In fact it is one of the freedoms guaranteed by free software.

> By your line of thought project should all have MIT licenses because you should not add restrictions

There are people making that argument, but there are also people arguing that guaranteeing freedom requires more conditions. There is no real consensus on this question.

Of course nobody is obligated and I never claimed that. In fact, I fucking hate the LLM hypetrain. But this decision is decidedly non-neutral and non-free.

Free software is about freedom and liberty. Sure, you can decide to prohibit certain use cases. That is absolutely legal and absolutely okay to do. But it makes you non-neutral and non-free.

That is fine unless you claim to be a neutral and free as in freedom service provider. You are clearly not at that point.

If you can’t keep up with the load, say that. Limit new signups and/or implement rate limiting, and ideally scale up if you can.

DO NOT try to spin that into taking some form of moral high ground. DO NOT make yourself the arbiter of what is and is not considered a worthwhile project. That is not neutral. That is not free.

> a hub built around “free software” is now telling its users which kinds of software are deemed good and which are not, and that is closer to censorship than it might seem. Once a platform writes into its terms that an entire category “harms its reputation” and can be removed on that basis, the deciding factor stops being whether the code is legal, or functional, or useful, and becomes whether it aligns with a position the platform has taken.

To me, this is the key point: Service providers should be neutral. Especially ones claiming to be free as in freedom.

Only get involved insofar as it is required by law, and stay out of it otherwise. Individuals can have their opinions and biases, but keep them out of the platforms.

It really is a shame Drew is so opinionated and dogmatic.

I like most of his work, but his politics make Source Hut too shaky of a foundation to build on.

> Hard agree on highlighting. I never understood it. […] It's just too much. Never worked for me. I only did it when I was forced to by teachers!

> There would've been essentially a post-it note on every single page. Or I'd highlight like half the page.

That just means you are not good at highlighting. Which is likely why your teachers wanted you to practice it.

If you highlight half the page, I totally understand why it never worked for you and you did not get it.

That just means you did not really try for 20 years.

> It was a great read, especially that it was probably 100% written by author with no AI help.

> I appreciate that the article wasn't written by human, but now that we have great AI tools […]

I have to assume this comment is slop.