> You can hardly blame Google for that

You can, actually, blame Google for implementing an unnecessary code signing requirement that only works if Google is allowed to do business in your country.

Also, well done Google! You've just given millions of people entirely legitimate reasons to find workarounds your attempt to lock up Android, and entire Nation States a legitimate excuse to hack your operating system, or even ban it and support free forks.

It's not illegal, but it will almost always result in a mistrial and a referral to the Bar if done by a lawyer.

I love the fact that this article claims the specification fixes the "main barrier to Enterprise Adoption (of AI slop)" right after an article saying basically AI will never be secure and you need to stop pretending it ever will be.

So it's unreliable, removes business knowledge from the employees of a company and puts it in the hands of a hostile third party, and now it turns out it's insecure, but adoption of the slobtasystem is only being held back by some specification? Really?

Name an alternative to a spreadsheet that's simple to use and doesn't require an overworked and usually unenthusiastic IT department to set up?

The issue here isn't that they used a spreadsheet, it's that spreadsheets are still treated as toys despite being the exact opposite.

> No one doing anything complex with software is writing their own code anymore

You are not everyone.

The fact you're lazy and do not care about the quality of your code or its future maintainability doesn't not mean anything unless you're reflective of the entire industry. And you aren't.

> The problem is that LLM-generated code has no copyright. Anybody is free to copy it without any limits whatsoever. That does mean that the GPL can potentially go out the window if too much code is LLM-generated or LLM-derived.

It is far too early to make this statement. It is sort of true in the US as a judge or two have ruled something like this, but copyright is a world wide issue, with a patchwork of completely different laws. It may not be protected by copyright in the US, but it might conceivably violate the copyrights of every single person whose works were loaded into the LLM without their consent in Europe, for example.

And honestly, I think that would be right.

That's a question, but an even thornier question is whether LLM code is itself a copyright violation. Europe and the US appear to be moving, slowly, in opposite directions on this, so there's a risk that using LLM code will render your entire project copyrighted by someone else in various jurisdictions if they can show that the LLM you used was built using their code.

For example, CoPilot, IIRC, is trained on the entirety of Github. If someone finds their code on Github, they may co-own your CoPilot-authored project in Europe, at minimum.

But LLMs are designed to use attractive, dopamine maximizing, phrases and workflows, so people use it anyway in the same way they gamble away their kid's college funds at a Las Vegas casino. We're so fucked.

We should but only in parts of the world where car usage isn't mandatory. US suburbs, for example, are not built for or served by anything approaching adequate transit, nor are they even walkable. Those areas not only should not need repeated testing, but you shouldn't even need a license to begin with.

And if you think that's a really terrible idea, well, maybe you need to support more walkable communities with adequate transit, even if you, yourself, wouldn't use any of it.

Also note I'm not proposing not punishing people for making driving errors. Just... suggesting that banning people from driving when that's actually practically a death sentence isn't appropriate. We used to shoot horse thieves because we believed in freedom of movement, and knew the consequences of taking someone's sole form of transportation. Somehow we don't now.

The ease with which a license should be obtained and kept should be proportional to how mandatory driving is.

> And most people aren't going to send $16 to $20 a month to 5 different streamers. Most people are smarter than that.

Most people were paying around $100 a month for cable. $16-$20 for 5 services is fairly cheap.

I also suspect you think that the alternative to this is one service with all of the content ever made that charges $10 a month. It's actually one service that charges $200 a month and periodically withdraws from distribution half of it like Disney did in the 1990s with VHS tapes.

It's the only way to watch NBC right now short of rabbit ears and some kind of ATSC DVR thing, or worse, a cable subscription, so there's that. If you want to watch SNL (for example) it's the only (streaming) option.

But that kind of content really ought to be free when ad supported.

To be honest, every discussion of streaming these days is "Why do I have to subscribe to 50 different services? Why can't there just be one" (the answer is because if there was just one, it'd cost $200 a month, and there'd be no ad free option.)

So yes, this is what the public is clammering for. The public doesn't actually know what it wants or the consequences of what it wants.

I rather like the current streaming environment. Way cheaper than cable, because no need to subscribe to every TV channel simultaneously. But I think a sizable amount of people think that somehow fewer services = cheaper, which doesn't make any sense.

GitHub has deleted projects because it didn't like them too or considered them too much of a hot potato. Try safely hosting an emulator on there for an older games console or something similar. The only difference is corpo-bias in things to remove vs moral bias.

You can self host if you have real concerns - most people have at least some idea of whether their project is controversial or not. Anyone using LLMs to code right now knows full well that 90% of actual people in computing, as opposed to corporations, have at least some issues with that. And even when it comes to so-called "practical concerns", anyone trying to find projects to use as the basis of their own projects knows that given the different copyright jurisdictions across the world, LLM generated code is a copyright minefield right now. So this shouldn't have come as a surprise, and the discussion was well signposted.

Codeberg's system, Forgejo, is so small it can be hosted on a cheap raspberry PI, a PI3 with a large enough SD card is enough. Obviously if you plan to have thousands of users you might want something bigger, but as a public way to share your code, port forwarding your residential cable Internet service to a Pi is fine.

People should be moving to self hosting anyway. If they don't, I have no sympathy.

It's not about the movie, it's about media "sharing"/piracy/copyright infringement on a massive scale (pick the term you find least offensive), which has been a Slashdot topic since the 1990s.

The visuals.

Interstellar wasn't just mid, it was utterly moronic... if you were listening to the dialog and couldn't see the screen. For fuck's sake "It's necessary"? And this, the most exciting part of the film, is about rotating your ship at the same speed as the one you want to dock with? Ooh, I'm on the edge of my seat! (Also, just coincentally the ship that's completely out of control and had 1/4 of it blown into space is rotating around the airlock but sure "most scientifically accurate movie evah") And why did Michael Caine outright lie to Murph? Why land on the planet with the absurd time dilation, it obviously was a no-go?

But look at the visuals that accompany this turd, and they're spectacular, and it's worth watching for that.

That's why people watch it. Not the sub-par acting. Definitely not the dialog. Not the "scientists said this was accurate" BS. And the story is beyond contrived. But the visuals are legitimately magnificent.

The EU is not a republic. A Republic is a state in which political power isn't hereditary. The EU's power however comes from a coalition of countries, most of which are monarchies.

Contrast with the US, which is a Republic:

- The US has an elected government which is in charge of the executive. The EU is made up of a mixture of institutions, some elected, but the elected components do not have control of the executive, that's left to the member states.
- The member states of the US are Constitutional Republics. Most of the European member states are Constitutional Monarchies.

Even if you'd argue "Ah, but the UK is a monarchy that's secretly a democracy", those concepts aren't contradictory, the UK has a monarch who has deigned to allow the people to determine the membership of the legislature, but that doesn't mean that it's not a monarchy. It's just democracy turns out to be compatible with all kinds of constitutional systems, just as Pinochet's Chile, a Republic, or Hitler's Germany (after 1934), a Republic, proves Republics aren't always democracies. Democracy requires those with constitutional powers allow the people to vote, who knew?

Anyway, the point is it's not a Republic. It's a Union of different groups that means it doesn't fit the strict definition of either Republic or Monarchy. It's just its own thing.