> There are well-established legal processes for resolving issues like trademark infringement.
Exactly, if that was the only thing WPE has leeched we wouldn't be here. They were tolerated for years but they kept digging more and more.
132 karma · joined August 30, 2023
Exactly, if that was the only thing WPE has leeched we wouldn't be here. They were tolerated for years but they kept digging more and more.
Are you for real? Event sponsorship is part of the marketing budget. They're there to promote their company among competitors. It's a universal business expense.
> plugin development ACF
ACF is their own asset
I mentioned this in my comment, they don't contribute significantly beyond their mouth. What you came with are just the receipts for what I said.
WP Engine leech off the WordPress brand from head to toe. Literally, from trademark to infrastructure, while Automattic covers the bill for the most part.
Of course, legally, WPE doesn't have to contribute beyond its mouth but if we are going down that route then also Automattic doesn't have to put up with funding WPE operation anymore.
I'm tired of people justifying WPE attitude and behavior by saying "legally, they don't have to contribute", well let's talk legal, everything happening to them is within those same lines too. Why are you complaining if it's legal?
This is one of those "fuck around and find out" situation. Matt just run out of fucks to give, and decided it's better to teach the bully a lesson even if it comes at a cost.
Interesting, why not a scheme? Is it because the popularity in the industry? I don't know much about Emacs or lisps and looking to understand better
They don't need to fight "AI" and prevent it, they only need to make sure their work isn't stolen at individual level, and there are tons of options they can adapt.
People are only hearing about AI, how it's revolutionary, and how it's master in every field.
It can solve questions better than me so why would I not use it to help me with everything that I can't figure out?
There are billions spent in marketing to make people buy these products. No one is telling customers to figure it out and see if it's useful.
Even many technical people started getting lost:
you know what? maybe it does reason. I asked it this novel trick question and it answered correctly. This is a new model, we don't fully understand its capabilities yet.
But AI companies on the other hand took the internet hostage. They stole any creative work, code, art, and literally any data they could their hands on with no regard to license or consent from users. No one actively opted-in to let AI companies have their personal data, they just silently grapped everything they could. Maybe there's some obscure website where you shared something private and lost access to the account or the website even went down? Congrats, it's now revived in OpenAI dataset where you've absolutely no control or details about how it's being used, not even a way to request and pursue legal action because the training data is a "secret".
It's not about compensation, it's that fact you have no option or say even if you don't use their services.
You can't escape or opt-out, unless you go off the grid, and even then they still retain your old data and use it as they see fit.
You're mistaken. You might be thinking of breach in terms of "hacking into", but they used it as:
personal data breach
[0] - https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/law-enforcement/guide-t...
What do you call the state that indie open source maintainers are in right now? Lack of business mindset? Skill issue?
> You and others seem to constantly misrepresent what FOSS explicitly means, and start involving some implicit rules about what FOSS means and should be
I thought "the vision" and a major corner of open source is others contributing and building on top of each other? Which of the following is more FOSS:
- Putting your code online and saying no to requests
- Collaborating together and contributing back?
Why do you refuse to promote the second option? How does it go against FOSS? To me, it sounds much healthier for the ecosystem and more along the spirit of FOSS. I'm not sure what definition of FOSS make you blame those frustrated with the lack of contribution and trying to promote it.
Are we seriously blaming the victims now that they're not strong enough to stand up for themselves? Do you go to people who got bullied or fallen for a scam and tell them you could have said no at any moment, it's their fault completely? The offender just asked nicely for your credit card information, they did nothing wrong, you just had to say no. Sorry, they played a fair game, you lost.
> The companies aren't "consuming"
What? what do you call companies who only come to a project to ask for features requests and then take that feature and disappear?
> The code is there, they can use it if they want.
But.. no one is complaining that they simply used some open source code that was published online. Why do you make up ridiculous arguments by yourself and then proceed to mock them? I'd understand if you misinterpreted my point but are you really oblivious to the struggles of open source maintainers? Or you're just downplaying it or something else? What's going on here?
Yes, they could have said no. They could have not released the code to begin with. But that doesn't change that they were taken advantage of.
When people open source their code they usually think people like them would benefit from it and appreciate it. Like I made this project, I might as well share it. But in many popular projects, you have a sole maintainer struggling to keep a roof over their head, while issues from companies (disguised as individual employees) requesting features and reporting bugs pile up, taking advantage of their labor and keeping them busy till they burn out.
The main issue is the majority of companies often don't contribute back, they just consume, they're a burden leeching off free labor.
The junk gets thrown at you in mass volume at low cost without your permission. What you gonna do? keep dodging it? waste your time evaluating every piece of information you come across?
If one of the results on the first page in search deviate from others, it's easy to notice. But if all of them agree, they became the truth. Of course your first thought is to say search engines are shit or whatever off-hand remarks, but this example is just to illustrate how the volume alone can change things. The medium doesn't matter, these things could come in many forms: book reviews, posts on social media, ads, false product description on amazon, etc.
Of course, these things exist today but the scale is different, the customization is different. It's like the difference between firearms and drones. If you think it's the same old game and you can defend against the new threat using your old arsenal, I admire your confidence but you're in for a surprise.
Sadly, you seem to not be looking further than your nose. We are not talking about just you and me here. Less tech literate people are the ones at a disadvantage and need protection the most.
Of course, gen AI is just a tool that can be used for good or bad, but spam, targeted misinformation campaigns, and garbage content in general is one area that will be most amplified because it became so low effort and they don't care about doing any review, double-checking, etc. They can completely automate their process to whatever goal they've in mind. So where sensible humans enjoy 10x productivity, these spam farms will be enjoying 10000x scale.
So I don't think downplaying it and acting like nothing changed, is the brightest idea. I hope you see now how that's a completely different game, one that's already here but we aren't prepared for yet, certainly not with traditional tools we have.
Define "a lot"? Most people barely know how to use their email. Even among the minority who do actively use "AI" and excited about it, outside of ML engineers they aren't well-informed or aware what data is used for training, or even what training means and how these models work to begin with.
> People are excited and enthusiastic about AI and are actively reaping the benefits of progress.
Except the terms were already violated in the initial training phase before the services were even public and saw adoption. That's like pointing at a rape victim who got some form of compensation later, saying:
see how she's "reaping the benefits"
By the time some people started raising concerns, OpenAI claimed the cat was already out of the bag and "if we didn't do it, someone else will, so deal with it."
Similar to privacy, just because some people don't care, lack awareness, or don't want the hassle of fighting for it, doesn't justify taking it away from others.
> The work of artists, authors, etc.
The work of artists, authors, etc.
I know currently the legal situation is messy, but that's exactly the point, anyone who can't engage in lengthy legal battle and defend their position in court are being sacrificed. The companies behind LLMs are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying and exploiting loopholes.
Let's be real without the data there wouldn't be LLMs, so it crazy that some people are downplaying its significance or value, while on the other hand they're losing sleep over finding fresh sources to scrape.
The big publishers seem to have given up and decided it's best to reach agreement with their counterparts, while independent authors are given the finger.
First let's acknowledge that at least 50% of those killed are civilians and many were also injured. That's a fact, you aren't debating that, right? When you mention `my entire argument` you just mean this part "Approx half the casualties are civilians" in my original comment, correct?
What is the criteria for the evidence to satisfy your doubts? If you're demanding the government of Lebanon (or any other party) to classify Lebanese citizens who were admitted to hospitals based on their political agenda, then making such judgment is not possible even if they wanted to. To be frank, in the eyes of the government, they are all civilians, since many other political parties have arms too, if that's what you want. But of course, you don't agree with that classification and at the same time you've no counter-argument.
1. Hezbollah only mourned 10 out of the 26 killed so far, claiming them as members (one of them being a medic). So the 50% seems to still hold, even leaving some room for malice and mistakes.
2. Most of the explosion incidents and injuries are coming from residential areas in Beirut so statistically the percentage of civilians injured as "collateral damage" is likely high considering many of those carrying these devices were going about their life, either with family or in public places at the time.
"two children and four health workers in a hospital in southern Beirut were among the 12 people who were killed on Tuesday."
- Public Health Minister Firas Abiad in a press conference
I expect more detailed reports will be shared over the next few days about the total casualty.
The attack wasn't as targeted as you seem to think. It also hit health workers and bystanders. Approx half the casualties are civilians (including children).
According to Humans rights watch: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers...
> Thousands of pagers simultaneously exploded across Lebanon and parts of Syria on September 17, 2024, resulting in at least 12 deaths, including at least two children and two health workers, and at least 2,800 injuries, according to Lebanon’s Ministry of Health.
Tailor your resume for the role you're applying for.
If the role is purely engineering, then show relevant tech skills. Instead of I built a startup, you could say I built a a platform X that does this using this.
When you're applying for a job you're basically submitting an answer to a question, so you need to understand what they need from you. Putting `I made a startup with X number of users` signals that you've your own thing and would leave in a heartbeat. It only make sense if you're looking for an advisor position related to product/business.
Redis team consists of 8 people: https://github.com/orgs/redis/people
- Lua (programming language): team of 3 - https://www.lua.org/authors.html
- openssl: 15 people - https://github.com/orgs/openssl/people
maybe also: sqlite, vim, nginx, redis
1. Regarding the answer being old (This seem a major point from your article)
Answers on SO are intended to be a living organism. It's expected to be maintained very much like code. If you look at answers related to CSS and JS, you'll find many cases of answers[1] originally written in 2008 that are still up-to-date and were updated by various contributors to cover multiple specifications over the years. That's just how it works. Notice how questions are designed to have one accepted answer. So, answers ideally should never fall under "its just something I wrote 10 years ago". It's not a book.
2. Was the answer helpful? or was it noise?
Like you said, the answer was at the bottom of the page, and that's because the majority of people even before the discussion, have found other answers more helpful and voted for them instead over this. What to conclude from this? I believe that was the topic of the meta discussion, and we play by the community rules. Stackoverflow is designed to work similar to Wikipedia. If I was a involved with the discussion, I have no strong feeling about the answer and would probably vote to keep it because it's not harmful per say. But mods and active users are the ones qualified to set the policy that best serve the site/community over time based on their observations.
3. It's nothing personal
The quality of the answer is what matters. The same person can have terrible and great answers. Both the author of the comment and the meta discussion seem to be criticizing the answer and expressing their frustration with it (Rightfully or not). But you went beyond criticizing certain toxic behavior or culture, especially with the parallel you draw at the end to "drives this point home." which seem to be insulting them as a person. There was nothing civil about that IMHO.
[1] How the answer to "How can I horizontally center an element?" evolved over the years: https://stackoverflow.com/posts/114549/revisions
This answer is blatantly off-topic and should be deleted
The irony in this post is through the roof
> existing working JavaScript code is also TypeScript code
For C++, it's been decades since anything like that was true.
> C++ is, like Typescript to Javascript, almost a superset of C except for a few changes that break things.
"Almost" and "few changes" are doing some heavy lifting here. Advertising and insisting incorrectly that C++ is a superset is only doing harm to both languages and causing confusion like the one in the post. It might have been true some 30+ years ago, but let's stop spreading it (outside of historical context) and misinforming others.
Please see:
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibility_of_C_and_C++
How would you express that instead? There was nothing harsh said here. Is it the word "blatantly"?
Can you share the web applications and databases you serve from your google drive? since you can "do the same job" and it costs less? You must be into something here.
Ignoring any privacy concerns for a moment. Neither the comment you're replying to, nor the submission is talking about just storing documents in a storage. They're hosting applications, databases, services which you need a "server" for and can't do in Google drive.
You might not the have the same use case, you might not need to host websites, databases, virtual machines, DNS, and other services, but then you're not doing "the same job". You just have a different use case. Just like you don't need an IDE if you just want to take notes.