IslandRebel

I am not prescribing anything. I don't really understand how you could have interpreted what I said to be such a thing.

Having two drinks and a night out where you have a few too many isn't a big deal. This is fairly normal, especially if you are under 35. It's probably best if you don't binge drink, but they were talking about it as if they had a big problem, which is quite obviously not the case.

I am a recovered/recovering alcoholic, I can't enjoy drinking responsibly, but I can recognise that other people can. I was simply giving a level-headed assessment of what is and isn't a problem. Scolding me for giving that assessment is asinine and I don't appreciate it.

1-2 drinks twice a week and occasionally having the odd night out on town isn't a problem.

You might as well just use a small regular petrol/diesel engine.

The argument about fewer moving parts is often made. But generally turbines are more expensive to make. They require precision engineering. Whereas regular engines (if you've ever worked on one) don't require that nearly as much.

I appreciate this if it's for turbochargers, but turbines share many similarities with them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bZu8atQ8lY

BTW, Garett builds/rebuilds turbochargers in many vehicles. If you have a vehicle with a turbo, see if it says 'Garett' on the side.

Gas turbines are not very fuel efficient.

> You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/commit/96fac426a32d1ba...

I have read it. This effectively narrows down the use of AI drastically IMO. Which is what I said.

This effectively limits it to stuff like code completion and using it as a chat assistant and doing some medium level refactors.

They should have just completely banned it. As the ambiguity itself causes problems. Even if you use LLMs maybe say 25% of the time, sooner or later that means that a significant portion of your code base is AI generated.

> They want to get rid of slop projects and vibe coders, not any project that has any developer that used any LLM. But again, requires you to read through the actual text to actually get their intention here.

I am not a vibe coder (I am a software dev with almost 20 years experience) and am using Heavy LLM assistance (I am running Qwen 3.8 locally) for some of my projects. I am making sure the code output is decent, well documented, has tests etc. Sure what I am doing is something betweeen "vibe coding" and "proper development" but there would be no way for me in the few hours an evening to even get to the stage I would be at in some of them without LLM assistance.

I would not be able to use codeberg for hosting my project under their rules.

It doesn't really. It allows it in very limited context which has overlap with other existing tools that predate AI.

I was looking at alternative hosting for some of my projects that are going to be opensource. I've heavily used AI to speed up dev (I've been a software developer for about 20 years now) and it was quite disappointing to see that they made that decision.

I've seen the posts myself now and there wasn't any intimidation.

What seems to happen on these stories that anything that might be construed as a threat will be, to pretend there isn't a problem with the speech and online laws in the UK.

It very tiring to have people like those on this thread pretend there isn't a huge problem.

More like "Here is a picture of an assault rifle that is clearly me on holiday because many of these guns are illegal in the UK."

Both the police and whoever claimed to be intimidated would/should have known better.

The problem whenever discussion of any of these subjects is that there will be people that are determined to pretend there isn't a problem in the UK with these laws when it is quite clear there is.

> Hopefully you can understand why the guy who owes him money would feel intimidated and call the police, and you can see why there appears to be enough evidence to charge the guy for harrassing the ower, and to arrest him so you can establish if he possesses the guns he has posted himself shooting.

No, I don't understand why he would.

Nothing there was intimidation. Pretending it is intimidation is stretching crudility. The fact that he got arrested over this is straight up nonsense, IMO.

All the posts read like blog-style posts, and there wasn't any aggressive language used there at all. He also mentioned he was meeting with people to resolve the issue through legal means in the posts.

I suspect the owner who owed him money was acting maliciously.

Why would I or anyone else care about the exact duration? It doesn't add anything.

Generally this applies to all governments anyway. The British state is just the most blatant at it currently, as they are losing control.

Why? Just open the door and look in it.

The British Government has be consistently violating people's rights for decades and probably well before that.

Recently I saw a clip on GB News where one of their analyst said that anyone that opposes a war and/or conscription with Russia will need to put in prison. The show host, Jacob Rees Mogg and Lord Redwood saw nothing wrong with the statements.

None of these people have been in the armed forces and are too old to be called up for conscription.

They largely can't do anything against consumers in the UK. One of the largest ISPs gave up sending the threatening letters because everyone just ignored them. Occassionally one of the tabloid hacks will write a piece about how naughty you are for pirating the latest <TV series finale>.

Most people just set up a seedbox with a VPN connection (this is what I do) and I never worry about it.

They tired this in the UK. I can get to a mirror of any pirate site without issue without a VPN. It ends up being a game of whackamole.

The Suicide stuff is about protecting them from people who were promoting self harm. The unalive stuff is because of threats of violence. You can reference murder if it is say part of a news story or referencing something historical.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en#Harm...

Creators are being careful don't want their video demonetised because once it gets the yellow flag, even if it is removed later they've lost the majority of monetisation.

The problem with providing direct proof of this is that YouTube moves the goalposts quite often and their auto moderation system is very inconsistent.

No it isn't mass hysteria. YouTube has a set advertiser friendly guideline. It will scan uploads and streams automatically.

YouTube used to demonetise profanity unless it was mild. YouTube would demonetise profanity in the first X number of seconds of the video. These rules change and have been relaxed of April last year, but generally these rules still exist.

There isn't a hard filter if you say "suicide" you automatically get it. However it increases the likely hood of demonetisation. So people avoid it to be safe. So you end up with people using stupid euphemisms all the time.

> They should, but it’s up to the experts to make the decision. You need an informed group to make decisions.

I've seen experts in my own field completely misunderstand what customers have wanted and/or completely missed the point. There are numerous examples where experts have made things worse or got things very wrong, especially in large construction projects.

There are many reasons why this happens, sometimes it is personal ego, adherence to ideas that are out of data, their paycheck might be dependant on a certain decision being made.

Experts should not get the say in everything. Pretending that people who aren't experts aren't capable of making reasonable decisions and ever is IMO asinine.

> Subjective preference is not data and does not offer a justification.

The point is that it isn't as subjective as you claim. It isn't simply people prefer the familiar. The article itself explores this. There are whole branch of philosophy behind aesthetics. I find it very frustrating when people believe that aesthetics is simply personal preference.

Sure, but that wasn't what I was getting at. The guy is complaining about the exploit being disclosed to Sony, but anyone who used the same tools could have found it. It's kind of like complaining that someone has spoilt the ending to a film when it been out for over a year.

The article is about the schism between the experts and what people generally prefer and recommends that said experts should try to take that into account. People almost always prefer traditional architecture. Is it really subjective when a vast majority of people agree? I suppose technically it is, but at the same time not really. There is obviously something that people prefer about it other than it being old.

> “Slop kiddies found the only hypervisor bug left, which I had also found a while ago, and decided to report to Sony,” the modder said on social media. “I asked them to at least wait for GTA 6 to come out so that people would have the opportunity to legally purchase the game and also enjoy linux. They agreed to wait, but not a day passed and they decided to waste it instead.”

If one user could have found this using AI. Then I would imagine anyone else could have found it.

I was forced to watch their atrocious sketch show while waiting in someone's house before we departed for the local pub.

I don't care for this argument at all. There are functional buildings where I live from the Industrial Revolution that look quite nice. I want things to look nice where I live. I don't want them to be ugly and demoralising.

As for the building you showed me. I think it looks awful. It actually looks worse than the architecture in movie Equilibrium.

https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-architectural-revie...

> The lack of respect software developers have for their craft confounds me every day, to the point that I wonder if anyone in software actually writes code because they enjoy it, instead of making money.

I used to enjoy it, and after many years of being asked to do nothing other than boring web applications or my work literally being thrown away (which worked perfectly) because management decided that it had to be implemented in <new language>. I worked hard to write something simple and well documented and worked as well as I could, and it was thrown away. I've had other so-called "lead developers" take credit for my ideas and then implement them so poorly; it was clear they misunderstood it entirely. I've had people straight up lie about what I would be doing in a position. I am currently trapped in a job where I was straight up lied to about what I was doing.

These sorts of experiences have left me completely jaded as a result. I know I am not alone.

I seldom have time to work on my own projects. Software is much more complicated than it used to be, and simply getting things working in a framework or scaffolding a project can take a lot of time. With the AI I can prototype software very quickly, while using my existing skills to stop it from going off the rails.

What I find strange is that you said specifically that he couldn't have been deceived and then described Tommy Robinson as a crook. Your internal logic isn't consistent.

What I am trying to explain to you is that this may not be because he is some sort of unrepentant racist. It happens because it is partly a reaction to people like you who are preachy and moralistic and due to him listening to the wrong people after his worldview is rocked.

DHH probably sees the information you are referring to as being manipulated because he has been deceived. He literally doesn't believe that, so arguing from that starting point is completely pointless.

I've fallen down the political/conspiracy rabbit hole myself. I've seen it happen to other people. So I can empathise with someone else doing the same. Just because he has money doesn't mean he is immune to this.

The fact that you are unwilling to even bother entertaining any explanations is a moral failing on your part.

> You can call me names all you like but I think it’s kind of weird that you would go to bat for him like this.

You were unwilling to bother doing some basic investigation. This is quite frankly unacceptable tbh, especially after you expressed such strong views. That is being wilfully ignorant.

Also, there is nothing weird about what I am saying at all. I suspect, like others have done to me, you just want to call me a secret fascist simply because I don't want to condemn someone because they have expressed an unpopular viewpoint.

I am also fed up of this being brought up every time the project is mentioned. I am not the only one that is fed up of this sort of stuff. Recently I had two friends fall out recently over the Russo-Ukraine war. One of them simply said, "Look, dude, I don't care, I am bored of hearing it." The other lost the plot. I've also said this to some people I know someone on the right when they start going on about woke shite and leave our convo group after we said "I don't care about this stuff".

All you are telling me is that you are going to be wilfully ignorant. That is intellectually dishonest.

Constantly reiterating that he can't have been deceived when I've told you how it happens to people and there are similar examples elsewhere is being an ignoramus.

> There are things in that article that are really a long way beyond having been deceived

I don't believe so. Can you explain exactly how it is impossible he is deceived?

> They cannot and must not be minimised in that way.

Why not? To me what I described is what fits 100%. You just asserting that is the case hasn't explained why I might be incorrect.

You clearly haven't taken what I've explained to you on board at all. I suggest you bother checking out any of how this occurs in any other conspiracy circles, e.g., UFOs or just watching something that promotes conspiracy theories, such as Hunting Hitler (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5248878/). It's the same mechanism, just a different form.

> And nobody who criticises them should feel any blame if he doubles down; he is a wealthy privileged white man who is solely responsible for the things he says.

I am not saying people should feel blame for criticising him. I am saying that should be blamed for brow-beating him.

Are you telling me he cannot be deceived because he is wealthy? Plenty of wealthy and privileged people are/have been deceived.

It was a turn of phrase. I am just pointing out that it is extremely unlikely.

I don't think any of this is politically motivated (the Linux stuff). I don't see anything on the site that even mentions anything remotely political.

Pretending that support for a Linux distro is going to translate directly (or at all) into political lobbying that is going to eclipse large donor groups that will sink hundreds of millions behind a candidate is delusional.

I did it in a VM took me 20 hours. Most of that time was waiting for things to compile and fixing mistakes I made because I didn't read the instructions properly.