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.

Getting the same price in the end is great and all but I can’t say being tested on without my prior knowledge or consent seems ethical.

Why is “randomized” what makes it ethical?

Not found

A party of one?

If one insists on only using open source software then bad changes can be removed by another dev.

If you could have nothing but pure intentions… that’s still a bad way to go about getting users to update. Users choose to not update to avoid getting fucked by Microslop.

We need to be the one in control of our computing for it to be ‘our’ computer, instead of Microsoft’s. That requires being able to change what it does via the source code, and sharing those changes with others. Windows is proprietary, no source code and it’s illegal to share it - it can never be ‘your’ computer like that.

Why did the hotel need over 360 accounts?

One does not “simply” avoid taking a political position - the silence is deafening.

“Could be used to (…) facilitate unlawful assemblies during internet shutdowns”

internet shutdowns

“Are we the baddies?”

Would you want the phone back after it’s been in their hands? I wouldn’t trust them to leave it alone.