> I think you underestimate how far the country has moved and how quickly. You underestimate the degree to which sexism is a thing of the past and you underestimate how accustomed to a total lack of professionalism in governance we BOTH the first Trump administration and the following Biden Clown show complete with its klepto-cross-dressers had made us.

I think you're trying desperately to pretend the world is something different to what it is because he's right and you're wrong.

Sexism is not a thing of the past. And I've literally heard people say they were voting for Trump because they didn't think the country was "ready" for a female president. On top of that, after decades of the country moving towards equal rights, we now have a regime that many Gen Z men literally voted for because they were told women had too much power and needed to be taken down a peg. Sexism, homophobia, and racism have been so obviously coming back as major movements I'm surprised anyone with a straight face would claim that sexism is a thing of the past.

As for your complaints about Clinton and Harris, both were highly qualified for the job, and as unlikeable as Clinton might have been, how could she possibly be considered less likeable than Trump?

You know who enshittified recipe sites?

Google did.

Google is why most contain a massive story about how the author once baked this delicious recipe based on Deliah Smith's method while on vacation in Tahiti using only the freshest oak leaves and... {continued for another mile of scrollable text}. Because real recipes are short, it became impossible to get any traffic at all with a straightforward "Here's roughly what it tastes like, here's how you make it" site. There was no reason for Google to do this, beyond seeing that some sites would be more valuable to end users if they had a lot of shit on them, despite the fact anyone with half a brain can tell that that's not going to be true for all types of website. I believe this all started around 2010 or so, when Google started going to shit.

And before you complain that recipe writers shouldn't care about traffic, what the fuck's the point of going to the trouble of sharing a recipe online if nobody is going to read it? A reminder too that LLMs are going to destroy the web because nobody's going to put up websites any more for anything but commerce and advertising.

Note also that most recipe websites these days do actually have both a "Print" and "Jump to recipe" button at the top of their pages. They know you're not interested in the stupid inane story. They're embarrassed to have to put that shit up. And ultimately the recipe is still there, so they're not completely enshittified. I still find them useful.

Why do you care? It's just one AI industry company complaining about another AI industry company scraping their content and repackaging it in a different way. They'll figure things out amongst themselves, and if not, it won't make a difference. It's not like Copyright is consistently enforced these days.

AFAIK, it doesn't matter who serves the ads. It's a low-quality page.

That time still exists in much of the world. The American...... experiment..... is being watched carefully, popcorn in hand. Something about trainwrecks and not being able to stop looking and all that.

Sounds like they're making a loud whining noise already before they even have a job!

They know it's bullshit, but they have FOMO.

Follow-up:

I asked claude.ai about this question and it agreed with the position that the GPL not only doesn't impose any obligation on the seller to the buyer, but actively disclaims any obligation (except the obligation to offer source code).

Claude was more thorough than I was, though, and actually looked up the details of the judge's tentative opinion and found that SFC's theory isn't that the obligation arises under the GPL, but that an implicit contract under California law was formed when Vizio's TV's License menu option offered the source code, and Paul Visscher accepted that offer through live chat with Vizio's tech support.

SFC's theory is that this offer and acceptance constitutes the formation of an enforceable contract under California law, and that the court can, therefore, order equitable relief, i.e. order Vizio to provide the source code.

This means the ruling isn't about the GPL at all, and also seems like a really reasonable argument that Vizio needs to cough up the source code to everything their license menu offered. The GPL's only role here is that it motivated Vizio to make the offer through the license menu.

That accords with my understanding, and undermines dskoll's argument that the buyer has standing. The SFC probably needs to pull a copyright owner into the suit to have standing. Unless the SFC is a copyright owner, which is entirely possible. I know they've asked owners of GPL'd code to assign copyrights. I assume some have.

I don't see anything in the text of GPLv2 that says the seller is responsible for ensuring the buyer can exercise/fulfill those rights. It says the buyer has the rights, and it obligates the seller to distribute source code to the buyer, and it says if the seller is under some restriction that prevents them from complying with the terms of the license they may not distribute, but I don't see any obligation to ensure the buyer can exercise the rights separate from the obligation to distribute code to them. But I think that obligation is to the copyright holder, not to the buyer, which means we still have the issue that only the copyright holder has standing to sue.

Your suggestion that the seller be responsible for "fulfilling" the rights might have been a nice improvement to the GPL if it could be written so it achieved your goal of giving the buyer standing, and without creating unacceptably-broad obligations on the seller (a stupid and contrived example: What if the buyer were unable to exercise their right to modify the software because they don't know how to program? Is the seller obligated to train them, or make modifications for them?). I think this might be possible... but in any case it doesn't seem to be present.

If there's some part of the license text I'm missing or misunderstanding, please point it out.

That would have no effect on the fact that the owner of the copyright (which is the original author) is generally the only person that has standing to sue for infringement of that copyright. You would own whatever code you contributed, but since you're saying the result would be an exact duplicate, you apparently didn't contribute anything.

This is a silly comment. No language is going to help you when you turn off the features that make it helpful. But the fact a language CAN help will obviously reduce the problems you have.

It's not as if all code in the kernel needs to be unsafe. Most of the complex code in the kernel - networking protocols, file systems, USB handlers, etc, can be 100% safe as none of it needs direct access to hardware or memory. It's only the hardware access, IPC, scheduler, etc that needs to be unsafe, and even then not all of the code implementing that, just small chunks that need to do specific things.

The bigger issue with the unsafe keyword in Rust is that you're not discouraged from using it unnecessarily, and there's an unfortunate attitude within the Rust community that it's entirely OK to use it to try to get 5% more speed or whatever. But Torvalds is free to impose a "No unnecessary use of "unsafe"" mandate, and probably should. (And the Rust language folks need to understand that some of their policies, including this one, undermines the entire idea of Rust in the first place. Safety should come first.)

Google's ranking algorithm downgrades sites where content is dominated by ads, so I think the dynamic here is the other way around: Recipe sites layered on huge numbers of ads in order to generate revenue, which caused their search ranking to drop, so then they had to go all-in on SEO to fool the ranking algorithm into raising their visibility.

The trick is not to go after his wealth. The trick is to go after his family's wealth: bankrupt and jail his kids. If you don't, you just leave disgruntled rich control freaks free to attempt to *retake* the kingdom after daddy is dead.

Unfortunately flattery doesn't feed the kids or pay the rent.

One of the more appalling things I've seen in the US on this stuff is people saying "Well actors are so well paid why should we care". The thing is theres a very very tiny number of actors that are paid well, the stars. But the vast majority, and the ones currently being sold by the AI firms as being replacable by AI, are background actors and bitpart actors and these are the guys who MIGHT be getting $30K a year if they are in regular work, and more likely far far less (The mean wage for actors is around $56K but its heavily skewed by a small number of very highly paid star actors so in reality its down around the $40K wage. Burger flipper wages.

And thats not even touching on the majority of workers in film, the crew, who have been getting fucked on ever since covid, worse in LA where large numbers of crew have been struggling with the fallout of the fires.