birdalbrocum

I am objecting to JavaScript.

One of the horrible consequences of the last 20 years of web (there are so many, not sure where to start!) that every person with an access to a computer thinks that they have every right to upload a humongous blob of binary to your computer without needing to ask. Thanks to silicon valley I suppose.

Why web developer culture is so annoying when it comes to naming things? Serverless? It is actually a server. Flight control? Nothing to do with airports or flights or whatsoever.

Ok, good points and I agree with messages as atomic unit of communication in mail vs message history per contact as atomic unit of communication in mail. This creates a mental state of communication flow (like a conversation) and inherently a different form than mail (more like receiving a mail in your postbox and can able to stack them singular).

> Asynchronous communication

> Rather than having flow and concentration interrupted by incoming message notifications, with email I can easily decide when to fetch and process messages.

Asynchronous communication describes the client-server-client model, and both chat and email fall into this category, especially since there are peer-to-peer chat programs. What the author states sounds to me like a problem with the notification model and fetching beyond the user's control. Chat is not inherently in "flow."

> And like the communists of old, AI scientists believe in their revolution; the old myths of tragic hubris don’t trouble them at all.

What an utterly bullsh*t way to say I don't know anything about history nor how world works.

For 200€, you can get yourself an old Thinkpad, flash it with some coreboot variation, install a GNU/Linux distribution and in process you will learn more things and it is not an RGB keyboard; it is really an "all-in-one PC".

What RTO and WTAF means? Who knows. I clicked on link to find out but looks like website blogs my IP range. I will never know this important information..

This is all about destroying free software and allowing "open source" to take over, nothing with memory safety whatsoever. This can sound conspiracy but the main idea is to push permissive licenses, so companies can exploit your work without even mentioning your name. I believe the goal of Canonical and similar companies is to create a fully alternative Linux+GNU environment without GPL/AGPL, push it with embrace, extend, extinguish tactics and eventually create a developer culture that contributing to permissive license parallel project is a better alternative than original copyleft one.

When I was a kid, every month I was waiting to get the demo CDs of the Turkish gaming magazine "Level". It was such fun times. I remember in one of those magazines, they had a small tutorials for C++ to make games and it was the first time that I tried programming with games magazine actually.

Licensing is not a simple semantic problem. It is a legal problem that have strong ramifications, especially things are on their way to standardize. What Facebook is trying to do with their "open source" models is to exhaust possibility of fully open source models to be industry standarts. and create an alternative monopoly to Microsoft/OpenAI. Think of it as if an entity had right to ISO standards, they would be extremely rich. Eventually researchers will release pretty advance ML models that are fully open source(from dataset to training code) and Facebook is trying to block them even before start to prevent of the possibility of this models to be standard. This is a complementary tactic of the industry to closed source rivals and should not be understood as challenging to them.

A good wording for this is "open-washing" as described in this paper: https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3630106.3659005