You'd have to first discover that they used it, then show that whatever code they implemented was based on yours I would think.

The billionaires are probably telling him but he's a dementia-ridden lunatic so it's not helping.

As a non-programmer and non-expert in AI, how bad is this for Anthropic? By client-side they mean this is the source code to what people download anyway? This has nothing to do with the server-side stuff accessed by the Claude chat interface?

"As for why OnlyOffice was chosen over LibreOffice, the project simply said: "We believe open source is about collaboration, and we look for opportunities to integrate and collaborate with the LibreOffice community and companies like Collabora.""

Ok, since they just refuse to answer the question, does anyone else know why OnlyOffice was chosen over LibreOffice?

Currently retirement accounts enjoy heightened protections typically -- managers are supposed to be fiduciaries, which means they need to prioritize the interests of the investor over their own interests, and are more liable if they fail to do so.

The only human being Elon Musk cares about is himself. He is a profound narcissist.

THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON REACTOS?!

Next you'll tell me Haiku is still an option.

"If people start flocking to Linux"

Will this be the year of Linux on the desktop?!?

Slow down, sometimes it takes a few years, or 32 years in this case, to get something right.

Waymo or Tesla? Waymo is so far ahead of Tesla that how can even the most gullible investor think they are every going to catch up?

Good news! Someone hacked it into existence.

It's done wonders for my addiction to Win 3.x games.

This is a stack of bad moves in one sentence. “ZERO chance” is absolutism masquerading as insight. “Today’s culture” is a vague, all-purpose boogeyman with no defined meaning. “Deconstructed” is doing culture-war labor here, not analytical labor. It is a loaded buzzword meant to trigger a mood, not convey a testable claim. In plain English: this is an appeal to panic, wrapped in a sweeping generalization, with the evidence conveniently left out of frame.

That is not an argument. "Sanity” here is just a disguised value judgment: made according to your ideological preferences. You are trying to smuggle your taste in through the side door and present it as common sense. That is called "poisoning the well", and it is a favorite tactic of people who are trying to ride the anti-woke bandwagon.

And so an AC helpfully tries to upgrade your unsupported claim into a civilizational diagnosis. The fallacies here are almost gift-wrapped: hasty generalization, appeal to common knowledge, and unsupported claim to universiality. “Our society does this with everything” is the kind of sentence people write when they want the grandeur of cultural analysis without the burden of naming three examples that survive contact with reality. This is the rhetoric of the echo chamber—it aims for the grandeur of cultural analysis without the heavy lifting of actual data.

And there it is: the coward’s escape hatch. Refusing to provide examples because they are “plain as day” is not confidence, it is evasion. We have a name for this -- argument by insinuation. People who deploy it want their false conclusions to feel self-evident so they don’t have to do the work of proving it. Conveniently, that also makes the claim immune to scrutiny, because any request for evidence can be dismissed as blindness. Again, this what you see at any anti-DEI, anti-woke rally. It only works if your audience is already on board that particular crazy train.

And this is your cleanest self-own in the thread. No, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That is how claims work. You do not get to declare modern television garbage, provide no evidence, and then act as if skeptics must disprove your ridiculous claim. That is not Russell’s teapot, by the way. If you are going to use it in a post, your really need to understand what it actually is saying. Russell’s teapot says the person asserting the invisible teapot bears the burden, not the person declining to genuflect before it. I know you don't want to believe this of yourself, but you are not invoking Russell’s teapot here. You are faceplanting into its exact opposite.

Also no. “Self-evident” is not a substitute for evidence. It is what people say when they are trying to upgrade a vibe into a fact. If the evidence were actually self-evident, you would name it. This tells us everything we need to know about you and your intellectual integrity.

This is the only intellectually honest move in the chain. It asks for definition, scope, and evidence. That is exactly why your culture-war script short-circuits here. Once somebody asks for receipts, you spin into a symphony of fallacies and rhetorical errors.

“I have consumed media, therefore my sweeping thesis stands” is not reasoning. It is just anecdote cosplaying as a conclusion. Which series, specifically? If the evidence is plain as day then naming the garbage should be the easiest part of your argument. Without it, you're just gesturing at a cloud.

What you are doing here is not criticism. It is culture-war fortune telling. You make an absolute claim, refuses to define terms, decline to give examples, then try to reverse the burden of proof when challenged. That is not skepticism. That is ideological freeloading. This whole chain is a nice little museum of bad argument: loaded language, hasty generalization, appeal to vaguely defined terms, refusal to provide examples, and burden-shifting dressed up as common sense. The only thing missing is a PowerPoint deck titled “trust me, bro” that you got at some Turning Point USA rally. Your posts are textbook examples of 'Argument by Vibe'—a collection of loaded language and burden-shifting that collapses the moment someone asks for a single concrete example.

I don't disagree with your post, though I think it's easy to externalise blame to mega-corps and ignore our own complicity and even enthuasiam for the change.

Just taking the last example. Spruce Eats et al exist because people visit them and they make money. If Spruce Eats is rubbish then it is easy to exclude it when searching but people don't. If people were willing to pay for good quality content then we'd have good quality sources out there to use, but they aren't so we've got whatever parasitical organisation can extract the maximum ad revenue for the minimum expense instead.

A lot of people in this thread seem stuck on "yay, Firefly, boo cartoon, no AI thank you" as if animation and AI are automatically some kind of downgrade. I think that gets this exactly backwards.

Fillion has to thread a bunch of needles to make this project work. The timeline placement is not just a continuity dodge. It is also the one place where the project can still use Wash without crashing headlong into the fanbase's cognitive dissonance from the Serenity film, but it also slams into a different problem, the actor existence failure problem, where an important character outlives his canon actor. Live action does not solve either of those problems, without creating even more cognitive dissonance. Live action just adds budget pain, aging actors, and the awkward spectacle of trying to pretend twenty-plus years have not passed. Don't misconstrue me, here, I am not saying it can't be done -- ST:SNW is pretty much walking that exact line right now, and doing it superbly, though I think it was a very lucky accident, not Paramount's tactical genius.

But Fillion's company does not have the deep, deep coffers that Paramount does. He needs something that pleases existing fans, doesn’t scare off new ones, can actually be financed, and allows him to address the death of a key actor in a way that doesn't alienate the fanbase. He knows what he's up against -- a franchise still haunted by a film that put not one, but two bullets into the existing fandom’s emotional center of mass. I'm fairly certain Whedon wanted Serenity to kill off any idea of a reboot. This is not going to be easy. Fillion has his work cut out for him.

And yes, that brings us straight to the AI minefield. Under current California law (AB 1836), which Fillion's company Collision33 and their partner Disney must abide by, the Ron Glass estate has total veto power and financial claim over his vocal likeness. I am not seeing the AI-fucks-actors moral apocalypse here. If his family chooses to treat AI as a digital legacy tool and are guaranteed compensation, what is the problem?

We’re talking about a high-fidelity preservation of a performance style, not a replacement of the performer. It’s less deepfake, and more digital restoration of a voice we already lost. If it worked for James Earl Jones and Darth Vader, why can't it work for Ron Glass and Book?

I know this is not a universally shared view, especially on Slashdot, where reports of the use of AI in *any* project is an open invite to anti-AI drive-by trolls, but the idea that AI-assisted recreation of an actor's recorded voice is somehow a disqualifying sin strikes me as backwards. Ron Glass did not take his talent with him to the grave. Glass' talent is still with us, preserved in recordings, from Barney Miller to Firefly. We still cherish it precisely because it was captured. If his family signed off, the estate was compensated, and the use was clearly disclosed, I would not see an AI-assisted vocal reconstruction as "fake." I would see it as one more tool for preserving a performance tradition that the medium itself made possible.

Hollywood -- writers, studios, actors, fans, everybody in this ecosystem -- is going to have to come to terms with this whether it likes it or not. AI is not just a productivity gimmick or a cost-cutting toy. Used well, it can also be a preservation tool. The blanket claim that AI recreation of a deceased actor is inherently disrespectful makes about as much sense to me as saying film restoration is disrespectful because the original negatives aged.

Fwiw, I still think the safe-pocket-in-the-timeline move is doing a lot of the creative heavy lifting here, but I do love the fuck-you-Fox signal that the Athenia pilot is sending -- it actually respects the episode order that Whedon intended for the series that Fox ignored because they wanted more humor and action in the opener to reduce the risk of scaring off their target demographic. I'm not out on a limb, here -- it was that target demographic's lack of sophistication, and Fox's very lucrative history of pandering to it, that doomed Firefly's run. And yes, I still think invoking Whedon's blessing for this project is tactically clumsy; baggage added to a pitch that already has enough risk baked in. But it's Fillion's call, and I'll back him, because I'd like to see the series rebooted, and he's the guy in a position that could make it happen.

I am fairly certain that Fillion's choice to use animation, and to honor Ron Glass's voice by recreating it (either by a voice actor or by AI) do not justify the anti-animation, anti-AI drive-by trolling permeating this thread. AI and animation are part of the solution set Fillion is trying to find to get this Firefly project out of his head and into our lives again. If AI can help preserve the presence of a performer people loved, with consent and transparency, then treating that as some kind of moral apocalypse seems bonkers to me. At the end of the day, for a Firefly reboot, animation and AI isn't just a budget call -- it’s a recovery project. It’s the original cast taking back the controls from the executives who steered them into a ditch two decades ago. If AI and ShadowMachine -- an animation studio with multiple awards, including an Oscar -- are the tools Fillion needs to get Firefly going again, I'm all for it.

Sorry to burst your bubble man, but we are way beyond the "wouldn't it be cool if Trigger did it?" stage. Honestly, I was hoping Fillion had lined up Pixar. In reality, Fillion has already got a studio, and they've already produced concept art, and it looks pretty good. Not cartoonish at all, so your anime dreams are dead on arrival. The studio is Shadowmachine, and they are not some low-bid offshore spec-animation mill. Not Pixar, sadly, but definitely playing in the same league. They're the studio behind Guillermo del Toro's "Pinocchio" (2023 Oscar for best animated film) and the cult-favorite BoJack Horseman (2020 Critic's Choice Best Animated Series). This strongly suggests Fillion is aiming a little higher, and for a little more relevance, than a nostalgia cartoon. Seriously, Cowboy Bebop was 28 years ago, ffs. But by all means, keep casting the anime version in your head; the rest of us are happy to go with Shadowmachine.