Open source software has always been about freely sharing source code. There have always been many kinds of licenses, some of which share the code only with those who also share their code. Some make the code totally free for any purpose. Some require payment for commercial uses.

This is not a new phenomenon. If you create open source software, you get to pick the license! If you want payment from some users, then go ahead, charge them for it, it's your prerogative! What are you griping about, exactly?

This is already an option. For those who want to sell their software, they can do so, and make it free for noncommercial use.

Microsoft does this today, with SQL Server and Visual Studio. Both are free for noncommercial use.

Lots of other titles do the same. This is *not* open source.

I don't think the point is to deny that AI is useful. It's to point out that it has become a handy excuse for layoffs, regardless of the usefulness of AI.

Haven't we learned by now that you have to do programming in bite-sized pieces, or we lose track of the requirements?

Just because AI *can* ingest large, complex prompts, doesn't mean we should feed these to them. Break down the prompts into small, bite-sized chunks. Feed them to the AI one bit at a time, so that you can review manageable chunks of code changes at a time. Otherwise, your review is worthless.

The pressure to work more house has been a thing as long as I've been in software, since the 1980s. The reasons to draw boundaries around your work hours have been important for just as long.

I guess it's like taking your kids to grandma's house. The kids always forget all the rules you've taught them, because the setting is different, and there's so much stimulation.

The kids--and we--have to understand that boundaries are still important.

Sure, they could do that. What are the chances they would consider that, or even find the QR code or suspect that one might be there!

We can decipher old script handwriting too, but it's not easy.

Probably not.

QR codes were invented in 1994, so they've been a thing for about 30 years.

In 500 years, will there even be QR code readers? I doubt it.

For a technology to last centuries, it has to be widely used for a long period of time. Otherwise, it's just a footnote of history.

Also, the internet / screen part of such an appliance, always becomes outdated much faster than the appliance itself. A refrigerator is expected to last 10+ years, a computer attached to it, not so much.

The WSJ does, and always has, relied on advertising for a large portion of its revenue. Why would we expect that they would suddenly talk about how bad advertising is?

Well, to be fair, 3 megameters doesn't sound nearly as impressive as 3000 km. And impressiveness is definitely one of the goals of this article, certainly more than expressing an appropriate level of precision.

It is also in keeping with common usage on earth, people do tend to speak of thousands of km when traveling.

Sure, I can name some of the hot-button issues.

Abortion on demand, transgender surgeries for minors, religious expression of business owners and public school students, the specific level of COVID restrictions.

Do you deny that these are hot-button issues, and that neither side gives an inch when it comes to these?

AIs are getting the ability to do things other than chat. ChatGPT can write some Python code and execute it. Claude can now write Jira JQL code and execute it. It can modify tickets and Confluence pages on its own. Of course, these chatbots don't understand the difference between chatting and doing, it's all the same to them. So if a bot executes something instead of just telling you how to do it, it's not trying to "get around" what you wanted, it's just an extension of its existing programming.

Neither the law nor the Constitution *prohibit* companies from disclosing private information about you, to the government. What the Constitution does do, is prohibit the government from *compelling* companies or individuals, to hand over private information, without a warrant signed by a judge. If companies like Apple choose to hand over information willingly, no laws were broken.

I'm with you on the first part of your post. Trump likely did know his actions were illegal, but did it anyway, thinking that some of his actions would somehow slip through the cracks.

Your characterization of Biden being a "uniter" though, is exaggerated. Biden came down very forcefully on the liberal side of the fence, on every hot-button issue that divided (and divides) Democrats from Republicans. As a centrist myself, I personally despair of either party truly deciding to work with the other.

Well, to be fair, LLMs suck at citing sources of *any* kind!