dun44

Oh, I'm sure writing those apps was an effort. But I was asking about something quite different - the cost of maintaining them. You do need time or money or people to keep an Open Source project alive; but you don't need to pay the authors for the work they've done previously.

As for the problem with a paid version - it's because when it happens, shortly afterwards the free version starts to rot. Monetisation might be good for the owner, but it's almost always terrible to user experience.

And North Korea is actually a Democratic People's Republic.

I wonder if you believe TV commercials honestly reflect their company's views too?

>The best I can think of is not to let people see the penalizing behavior

I wonder if it would be possible to split HN (or any other HN-like site) into two halves: one would handle the actual storage of posts and comments, and another would handle the scoring, ie the order the comment tree branches appear in. Then we could have multiple of the latter, competing with each other on the scoring alone, with the actual content being common.

Regarding IBM's use of technology widely known for hallucinating to translate sensitive source code: it sounds weird you think the primary objective here is to deliver something that properly translates from one language to another. But it is not - the primary objective is to get money from customers and investors. Delivering something that works is secondary, and honestly, optional.

Many things in IT start making a whole lot more sense once you reexamine your beliefs about their purpose.

It might be easier to ditch the Sidewinder-like custom IR sensor for a stock camera, and make up for this in software instead.

At the same time, I'm not sure if working on cheap guidance systems is the best idea at the moment - it could be used by Russias and North Koreas out there.

Industry doesn't need to produce anything of value - it needs to produce money. And there are many examples of successful business selling hate, eg extremist media.

How is this even legal?

So again, how many man-hours does it take, monthly, to maintain those apps? Note that I’m a programmer myself and so I’m not asking about the usual enterprise-level fake numbers.

Also, while open source definitely needs some funding, it can become badly harmed by too much of it, when code becomes developed purely for money and not for the usual ESR’s open source incentives.

I love how this article provides examples of all kinds of mainstream falsehoods, from beauty filters to Mao, and then keeps completely silent about the oldest and most prevalent one. Says something about its target group I guess.

Problem is, this isn’t sustainable. Protocols need to evolve to continue being relevant, and vendors use that for their user-hostile needs. See how WWW evolved from hyperlinked documents into a Rube Goldberg remote application protocol.

Besides, those two - protocols and teaching users not to depend on any single platform - aren’t mutually exclusive.

Calling someone a Jew in the middle of protests against Israeli war crimes might indeed be harmful by inciting violence. Posting a random meme usually won’t. It’s not that hard to tell the difference.

Unless you also can’t tell the difference between “being not aligned” and actively inducing hatred against minorities, ie being a nazi. But that’s dementia, not ethics.

>AI is not creative

Neither are those designers. My point is, AI will make producing uncreative designs even cheaper, which in turn will make career in uncreative designs unprofitable, which means fewer uncreative designers.

Exactly what kind of funding does it need?

I suspect you’re mistaking commercial companies pretending to be doing open source with actual community-driven open source.

If they are open source, then someone will publish a fork and that’s it, problem solved.

If that doesn’t happen, it means they weren’t an open source project, but a commercial one with an open repo, and so weren’t sustainable anyway.

Except businesses are - or should be - expendable. They are just managerial structures built on top of actually useful resources like people. Businesses only use those resources; they don’t create them.

Does it even matter? I think people have already learned you can’t depend on a single social network. And that dependence was the only thing of value Twitter had; same as with Facebook or Google, everything left there is just a pile of technical debt.

Hopefully AI will make those uncreative designers redundant, freeing them to do something more aligned with their talents.

Sure you can, as long as you’re not harming anyone.

The difference is that it is much harder to make a living out of it. It’s the industry of hate that’s being targeted here.

Ptrace could an equivalent of what /proc was originally supposed to be, before it got repurposed for a bunch of sysctl-like purposes.

Or perhaps it’s time to reconsider whether the whole idea of “IP ownership” still makes sense. It was introduced because it was, on the whole, beneficial to society. Now that AI can make producing content much cheaper, do we still need that incentive?

I'd love to see a comparison between this and https://github.com/mist64/cbmbasic.

Typically two different jettison mechanisms, one with a dedicated "emergency jettison" pushbutton.

Also a bunch of physical HOTAS controls, from four-way switches to the small joystick under pilot's left thumb.

Mainframes have to implement a fifty years old architecture, and I suspect they have vastly smaller engineering teams, since their market is orders of magnitude smaller than those of Intel or ARM. Also I seem to remember IBM being seriously hostile towards independent benchmarks.

Also, if they were competitive wrt performance, people would be using them. In real life they are rarely found outside of financial institutions.

>However at some point you have to admit the LLM does generate things that are good answers.

Hawing a noise generator sometimes generate something that looks like a valid signal doesn’t mean it’s not a noise generator.

First, the security argument is BS. Google is no way more trustworthy than Adblock developers; quite the opposite, given incentives.

Second, Google is hostile towards users. Apple isn’t. This means they would use the same mechanism for different purposes.

That’s one reason why we need a YouTube archive that’s outside of Google’s control.

You can’t really fork chrome; it would be unsustainable as an open source project. Unless you plan to keep integrating upstream changes - but then you’re still following whatever Google wants to do, you can merely delay it.

Sadly this isn’t about how the „rightful” IP owners use DMCA to scam YouTubers, only about some small fish.

Have you verified that those changes are not something trivial like formatting?