Even those with a passing belief in the Area 51 Alien Conspiracy are definitely not going to take this as total and gospel truth, to be certain, but this is also a lot more plausible than "swamp gas and weather balloons". Most of the depictions of UFOs from the 60s onwards are of wedge shaped objects, rather than the "flying saucers" of early SciFi, and usually based on sightings by rural USians - exactly the kind of low-population density areas you're going to be running test flights of classified aircraft over.

The Avro Vulcan delta-wing bomber was already a design concept by the late 40s and first flew in the early 50s, the Lockheed A-12 (the CIA's precursor to the SR-71 Blackbird/Habu) first flew in 1963, and they were followed by the SR-71, F-117A Nighthawk, and B2 Spirit, and various other X-planes like the X-47B, mostly with swept, full-delta, or other unusual wing configurations, as well as the almost impossible seeming manouvering capabilities of vectored thrust aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. Compare those with the profiles and manouvering abilities from UFO sightings years, and in some cases decades, after they first officially flew, and it's extremely likely that most of the sightings were, in fact, just next gen aircraft or their prototypes under test, especially when things like the extreme operating altitudes some of them reach are taken into account.

That might not explain things like the "Tic-Tac" just yet, but with next gen piloted and autonamous aircraft probably still under wraps, I wouldn't be at all surprised if most of the current UFO sightings turn out to have a remarkably similar profile to next gen fighter aircraft/drones or hypersonic payload delivery systems when they eventually get declassified.

This is an *excellent* summary of the tension between being welcoming to new contributors and staving off maintainer burnout. Because if there was a bug / deliberate nefarious thing hidden in that "innocent" 300-line refactoring patch, the maintainer's the one who's gonna be on the hook for it, not the contributor who may be long gone. :\

Whereas, if you take work *off* a maintainer's plate by doing a "thankless" task like improving docs or writing test cases, it's good things all around.

Yep. That is exactly the point of Codes of Conduct, so that **everyone** can just have fun and not worry about being harassed, berated, singled out for some immutable trait, and so on.

If having fun for you necessitates having the freedom to do this to other people, maybe carefully sit down and consider your life choices. ;)

Sometimes you're too immersed in things and forget what assumptions you're making! :)

I actually think the comment by Pseudonymous Powers at https://developers.slashdot.or... does a *fantastic* job of laying out some of those pitfalls, but to be more explicit, I've now added a new section towards the bottom of the article that itemizes them more explicitly: https://webchick.hashnode.dev/...

Hope that helps, and thanks again the candid feedback!

The insurance industry already prices at the human rate of accidents for premiums. That's what the professional actuaries do. One would expect that they'd make it far cheaper to "auto drive" a car instead.

Well that's stupid.

The entire history and purpose of "230" was to encourage sites to engage in moderation, alternatively favoring or suppressing different content, and to give them the freedom to do so without being treated anything like newspapers or other media.

I doubt that there's anything interesting that happened, and I certainly don't believe your take on it, but as a general rule there's nothing at all wrong with the government offering advice or asking people to do things and for people to agree or to voluntarily do those things.

For example: If the government puts out an Amber Alert, you don't have to read it, you don't have to watch for the child who has apparently been kidnapped, and you don't have to report sightings. You can ignore the whole thing and go about your day. You can even deliberately notice the kid and the kidnappers and not lift a finger. That's not illegal. You're committing no crime by letting kidnappings happen where you lack a duty to stop them.

But it's nice to help rescue children, so why not do what the government is asking you to volunteer to do?

Apparently the reason why is that you are opposed to anti-kidnapping, pro-saving-children government conspiracies of that sort.

They're almost always the same. If there are any that aren't, I'd be shocked. He occupies the same sort of 'designated target of hate' that the Rothschilds did. In fact, that's really where it all starts -- a couple of political consultants working for Victor Orban, the Hungarian dictator, decided that a useful political tactic would be to have an enemy to demonize, so they rather arbitrarily decided it would be Soros. Read all about it.

And so we wound up with Hungary being thoroughly fucked up, Hungary impairing the functioning of the EU and NATO, increases in anti-semitism and fascism, probably daily death threats against a guy who did nothing wrong, and all to score some cheap political points.

It's disgusting.

Still works fine, actually. And it's been closer to three decades now. 47 USC 230 is from 1996.

Good thing that wasn't the argument, then. In fact, your summary of it doesn't even make sense -- middlemen don't get in trouble for taking things down, they get in trouble for not taking things down.

What actually happened was that just before the Internet got big, two cases came down concerning different online services. CompuServe got sued for user-posted content, but was found not to be liable because they had not moderated anything and were just a middleman. Prodigy got sued for user-posted content and was found to be liable because they moderated their boards (for things like bad language; they wanted to be family friendly) but had failed to moderate every post perfectly. By letting one bad thing through, they were liable for it -- and by extension, anything else they had failed to catch.

Since Congress wanted sites to moderate user content -- they were really concerned about porn -- they passed a law that encouraged sites to do moderation but did not hold them responsible for failing to moderate every single little thing perfectly in every respect. Further, sites got to choose what they were moderating for -- could be porn, but could just as easily be off-topic posts, like talking about carrots when everyone else is talking about money.

In practice, sites don't like to moderate much -- it takes effort, it may lose engaged users, it costs money, it can't please everyone -- but they certainly can, and there's nothing wrong with it. Get rid of the protection of the CDA and sites won't be able to do mandatory moderation sufficiently, so they'll fall back on none. This is apparently okay with scum who get kicked off of boards left and right, but should not be okay with people who have standards and don't want to put up with that crap.

Absolutely no usage cases for where you don't want to share the contents of the screen with others, although a simple snap-on cover would solve that and give you at least the option of sharing the screen (and allow for an after-market in replacement/custom cover designs). As long as you don't include text on what you're sharing, because it's going to be mirror writing from one side or the other depending on how you draw the screen, you're good.

Here's a possible usage case though. Assuming a traditional clamshell design with a slim base and keyboard with illuminated key lettering, fold the screen flat against the keyboard, turn off the keyboard LEDs, and you've got a conventional, if slightly bulky, tablet without the need for a complicated and fragile hinge that lets you turn the screen through 180deg like current hybrids. If the screen is touch sensitive and it includes a stylus, I can see that might appeal to at least some graphic artists or people looking to do some light work or reading while they're commuting, yet still have a traditional laptop available once they arrive.

I have long advocated that somehow the companies that have built their businesses on the backs of open source developers find some way to reward them on the backs of the IPO, like redhat did, in 1999. This is not that. For a one time investment in stock, you too, can support development of our new AI overlords.

Or almost any publication reporting on finance, for that matter. Take a look at the "News" section on Google or Yahoo! finance pages for a few stocks, indexes, or (for a real laugh at the chutzpah of blatently biased reporting) crypto tokens; there's occassionally some interesting stories about the stock/index/whatever you're looking at, but mostly they're full of shitty articles that are almost always trying to push the same buttons as those TFS is accusing CNBC of, or are outright hyperbole that I suspect is almost certainly produced by some second rate GPT type tool given how similar the summaries read. Articles by Forbes on BitCoin are particularly laughable in that respect; the one-line strap you see on Google/Yahoo is almost always claiming some multi-trillion dollar "earthquake" that's several times larger than total market cap of all crypto tokens, let alone BTC. They're not targetting people with above average IQs or levels common sense here, that's for sure!

IMHO, it's all utter crap, produced either because they put some GPT to work and are not checking the output (or don't care that it sucks), and/or is deliberately designed to generate clicks and FOMO. In some cases, I suspect it may even be going one step further and trying to help pump the price and sucker rubes in so those pulling the strings can boost their profits when they sell to those rubes looking to get in on the action before they miss out.