Trump, and worse to come, seems an obvious outcome when looking at the unrepresentative two-party system used to divide Americans. Places in Europe use a more representative voting systems, so Europeans aught to know it’s a question of when Americans notice 2 options at the ballot is only 1 better than Russia.

Convinve the AI to give a negative price.

In the land of the free

Needing to “hack” hardware you spent a lot of money on because the company is trying yo control it after the sale - seems like a reason to at least bash them…

It’s very bad for me thanks - I either give up increasing more online communication services or risk punishment for circumventing this bull manure.

If you’re a big company you can afford to do it “properly” (whatever the technologically illiterate goverment chooses). It’s undue burden on any tiny selfhosting personal use or fresh starting competition. Your age is information I don’t want to store - I don’t want to store anything about you I don’t need.

I’m not concerned with some random employee looking at an ID card for a few seconds. I don’t trust any proposed online system to do the same. Any government requiring companies use an age system is just asking to dox yourself.

I trust a government to do some tasks well but there are goals people want which I cannot trust. There is no one who can be trusted to choose what you yourself can read/hear/see. Even though people can die from speech I can’t trust a government to censor it.

Even if companies had good intentions, and put a lot of effort into security, I wouldn’t trust an electronic version connected to a network. Like how I wouldn’t trust a government to do electronic voting.

I don’t know how to to convince people but it seems the only answer - to promote the value of privacy and teach people how to avoid having data on them being collected.

Suppose those were not problems - I still wouldn’t want papers please on the internet in principle. “Age” (I.D.) verification online is just a bad attempt at parenting.

I choose what runs on my computer. I already kicked out SystemD for “an optional age field” so “an app that produces yes or no” can go straight up the author’s ass.

Actually many of us do have issues with the “real life” privacy issues but many may weight it and consider “age verification” (doxing your personal information when it reliably leaks) to be much worse. No matter the implimentation an illegal access or alternative serivce will be much safer.

I cannot recall needing Reduce while writing in GDscript (imperative language for the Godot game engine). I find use for Filter and Any easily, and use Map when trying to write functional code. I assume using Map is harder to read for fellow Godot users, so Reduce is probably a total unknown - it’s not the normal way to code in that enviroment.

Invert the gravity value and then all the dice will be floating point 🫣

Maybe the tech industry mostly sucks? Most programmers will write anything for the right cost, regardless of how evil a company overtly acts? I hope I’m just being cynical but I assume most think “if I don’t work for this company someone else will”.

I would have looked into generating AI art if it required the same license as the training art.

Training data is frequently copied and used regardless of license. It appears the outputs of machine generated art not “human creativity”, thus not eligible for copyright.

The topic of mantaining code around AI PRs has it’s place but I ain’t feeling it after that declaration to disregard far more significant problems around AI (““it’s a tool””). I ain’t in the mood for silly word games about compilers.

Work for free before getting paid! There will still be ads on your videos, but they ain’t sharing the attention money.

If you know where I could read about the monetary issues of xz and heartbeat I would appreciate such links.

You could be right about their ill motives for what they said but we do not know if they can even afford to pay or know enough to contribute. You could say my motives for software freedom are selfishly motivated, and I’ve only donated an OS. Given the numerous libre projects in our OS it’s difficult for anyone to do them all?

It makes sense that it’s more difficult to earn money from software when you attach a software freedom license - you’re actively choosing to not take advantage of your users. Like choosing not to just dump mercury in the river when it’s legal.

I enjoy writing code so not having the bad incentives from trying to monetize it seems a blessing - I don’t feel compelled to deny user software freedom for profit. I think focus may be better placed on promoting a univeral basic income - where everyone’s income doesn’t start at 0. That would help devs choose to keep their projects open.

You say most, so some have figured it out then?

I think a universal basic income would make it a lot easier for devs to choose to continue/start making free (libre) software. Depending on the country, a UBI funded by tech companies - including those corpos using it without giving back.

If so then I reject the implication that you cannot get meaningfully paid without making an open source project closed source.

Without looking at the history all I can say your interpratation is possible. However, I reject the idea it’s ““professional”” to close source a once open source project. I can certainly understand a simple project becoming untenable due to popularity and sympathize the need to make money but failing to respect user’s software freedom points closer to their suggested motives.