Because law and culture are connected.

It may be source-available, but this is a shitty closed license resembling Facebook's Llama license.

When I see a company that doesn't do layoffs in a dehumanising way, it makes me think it's probably a good place to work.

Right, because of course reasoning about a site based on its name is the smart thing to do. Either a dumb joke or bad reasoning.

Pity that distros made these two gigantic bad choices recently and didn't ease up on the gas when the cliff got near.

That's not what that means. That term became active when the license was released. It means if you ever go over 700 million active users in the previous month, you need to talk to Facebook for a different license.

(there's also that other limit on how you can use the output, prohibiting usage that might go to train another model)

Clause 2 limits noncommercial use. Hence it is not free for commercial use. Without paying, people face a usage limit on how much they are allowed to use it; even though the limit is very high, it is there, and they would need to pay for an alternative license if they go over it. It is not free either in terms of liberty or price.

Which means it is not free for commercial use. It has limits, Which is why I've been raising a fuss whenever people make this claim (or the claim that it's an opensource license, where this and another clause are both problems).

Slashdot may be accurately summarising the article, but the article is incorrect.

Codellama is under the same license as Llama 2, and Llama 2's license is not an open license.

It's not as open a license as Facebook tells us.

Because it's a topic worth writing about, and because Windows having issues updating doesn't reflect badly on the user because Windows manages all that itself with little user visibility or input.

Chill out.

So long as the game looks promising and they don't do Denuvo or some other obnoxious DRM, I probably would've bought a new Deus Ex without a lot of skepticism. Unfortunate to see it put back on the shelf and them preferring some new IP that I'm less likely to be into.

This is not strictly speaking true. While the file list isn't present upfront, it's possible to skip over most of the contents of each file; getting a full file list ends up being a "read header, seek ahead, read header, seek ahead, read header, seek ahead" operation that might traverse the whole file but doesn't need to read every block of it.

You won't find the phrase "environmental toxin" or even the word toxin in the recommendation.

Chill. They're providing advice. You can ignore it if you want.