I both love and hate this so much. The performance and recording is incredible but any super tech nerdy parody just causes me immense internal cringe. I couldn’t make it more than a third of the way through that and I love working with K8S.

Absolutely the best kind of space crashloopbackoff.

Agreed. I didn’t think that it would have made much of a difference, however, even if Biden came across as a master orator. “Undecided” folks are probably just going to use whatever they take from it to justify whatever decision they were likely already going to make.

I did watch it. It was not great but, I’m still left with the impression that people set really unrealistic expectations for an 81 year old with a history of speech impediment. Those things come back in novel ways as we get older. IMO, the whole thing borders on elder abuse but, that’s where we’re at. Just disappointing to see the “left-wing” (corpo) media immediately on the attack - they seem to be trying to carry more water due Trump.

Also, I am not sure if the shell-shocked look of the talking head before she started speaking was from the debate or the words on the teleprompter.

I really hope not. He is as corpo as it gets, shielding PGE from actual consequences.

Yup.

I dunno. IMO, he didn’t sound terrible. He sounded like an 81 year old who probably shouldn’t have been shoved into the nomination but the other frontrunner last time could have forced some representation of the left, so the DNC did it anyway. At least he made an effort to make sentences and call out lies, which the moderators should have.

I hate that our choices are a guy who should be retired vs a nazi that should be retired.

… Hydrogen cyanide is literally what has been used to execute people in gas chambers and genocide during the Holocaust. The LC(Lo), the lowest recorded lethal concentration is 107ppm, resulting in death in 10 minutes. That’s, objectively, far more dangerous than the respective material that firefighters were exposed to at Chernobyl. You don’t want that in any appreciable quantity in the air around people that you want to continue living.

So what it’s really like is only having to do half the work?

If it’s automating the interesting problem solving side of things and leaving just debugging code that one isn’t familiar with, I really don’t see value to humanity in such use cases. That’s really just making debugging more time consuming and removing the majority of fulfilling work in development (in ways that are likely harder to maintain and may be subject to future legal action for license violations). Better to let it do things that it actually does well and keep engaged programmers.

There are certainly places where BusyBox makes a lot of sense. Could you give some examples of where you’re seeing it out of place?

That’s the beautiful thing about gifting software with permissive licenses (when one wants to): it’s a gift and anyone can do whatever they want with it for free.

ETA: I DO think that it is important for one who chooses to license software permissively to be informed about their decision and its implications. But, just like consent in other areas, as long as one enters into it intentionally and with the understanding of what the license means, it’s noone’s place to judge (and, like consent in other interpersonal areas, the license can be revoked/modified at any time - with a new version). Honestly, really weird of those that take issue with individuals choosing to gift their software to humanity - there’s way more interesting and useful things to engage in in the FLOSS landscape.

…People who wanted to donate their software to the public with no strings attached could see an uptick in the number of users?

Nah. They’ll be happy that minorities are hurt too.

And if you have a 3D printer, you can make your own pieces and share them with others.

I really wish that an affordable desktop chip fab was a thing. Maybe with graphene semiconductors it could be feasible.

Curious from your perspective what you’d like to see. From mine, Viture and Xreal are nearly perfect, with the exception of Xreal failing to be supportive of open APIs.

This is an appropriate reaction, in my opinion. Modern economic philosophy is entirely myopic with no apparent perceived value in anything beyond the next quarter. From that perspective, if your employees have already created value and you’ve budgeted more than severance would cost (or think you can get away with constructive dismissal), then, for the quarter, getting rid of employees looks like a financial positive.

One day some MBAs are going to learn that if you don’t want constant turn over you give workers a pension so great they would crawl over their mother’s corpse to get it.

Plus, modern MBAs see turnover as a good things because it makes the short-term investors happy.

That’s what they were SO close to getting. Solutions like Xreal Air and Viture are just much more comfortable and less isolating.

Exactly. Bad actors are going to act badly. Unfortunately, something that we have to accept as reality (and something that some political philosophies fail to plan for). Bad actors will break the rules and, if they are wealthy, they will more often than not get away with it in the current state of affairs.

However, I would say that you bring an interesting point. It would be worthwhile, philosophically to have a “Pacifist MIT” license, being permissive but explicitly denying legal use to MIC.

what would you do if someone used it to hurt people instead? I’d personally feel like shit if my software were used for that, and as others said in this post, they’d prefer to have entities request an exemption rather than have their code used in ways they don’t approve of. So what say you?

I’ve a few thoughts on this:

• Anyone who wants to use anything that I release for harm, will probably do so regardless of license. Bad actors are going to act badly. Plus, chances are that they’d see no legal repercussions as underdogs winning in court is the exception, not the rule. The legal system is heavily stacked against the little guy.
• I tend to specifically avoid working on things that are weaponizable to reduce the chance of ethical conflict.
• The projects that I’ve released or plan to release tend to be pretty esoteric. The one that saw the most interest was years ago and it was an adapter between abandoned gallery plugin and an abandoned social media CMS thing. It would take some great creativity to hurt people with that, other than making them read my horrible code from that era. My current projects are more about FPGA and mixed reality stuff.
• Once I’ve created something and shared it freely, it is no longer wholely mine. I cannot dictate how one uses it, anymore than a musician can dictate how someone listens to the radio. As long as one abstains from creating tools intended to harm (or that can be predictably turned to harm), I don’t see legitimate ethical culpability. We only have control over ourselves.