gian

If you are right, they started from the wrong place. I am pretty sure that in a corporate environment there are thing more important to be “corporate friendly” than the coreutils.

Is this anything a VLAN and Pihole can’t fix?

You can simply put it on a guest WiFi network that cannot see any other networks and just put a password on your main network, it is not that difficult.

A shuter sound does nothing now that both cameras and phones with a decent zoom

Why would you want to put the onus of proving something illegal was done on the victims?

Because someone is innocent until proven guilty maybe ?

Banning pervert glasses solves the problem at the root. Plus it’s orders of magnitude more easy to prove someone wore them than proving something illegal was done with them.

Maybe, but this way you ban them also in situation where they could be usefull.
In a way you are punishing a technology instead of the people making bad use of it.

I did in fact switch to self hosting. Also, how would you define “illegal activities.”? The internet is a decentralized, world-wide platform. Which State’s jurisdiction would you like to fall under?

The jurisdiction of the country where the server/company is located.

Assuming full technical responsibility would probably make most AI-generated code pointless, as the whole point of using AI this way is that generating code saves work. Which is not any more the case if the result is really fully reviewed.

When you submit code that you write you take responsibility for it, irregardless of the tools you use. AI generated code should not be different in this aspect.
You can use AI to generate code but you should review it anyway, at least at the basic level to make sure that it does not contain obvious bugs and do what it is supposed to do.

The other thing is there is no way one can declare AI generated code safely free of copyright isses. You’d need to prove that the result code was not contained in the training data - which is not possible.

Which itself should make people to avoid to use AI generated code for anything else than playing around.

When companies are not able to produce enough to satisfy demand and are actively stopping selling to certain sectors and harming them, they should lose their patents.

Except they stop selling to certain sectors because these sectors pay less. I am pretty sure that if a laptop maker ask to buy the RAM at a 50% higher price than AI companies, the RAM producer will happily sell to them.

RAM companies are actively harming all of us by selling their products to the AI companies and leaving us all without RAM, so we should encourage alternatives.

And how do you plan to keep these alternatives from selling to the higher bidder, which will probably be a AI company ?

No, it is not a good time. A project like Ubuntu should now be in freeze as they had about 3 months before release and definitely it should not have a break in something basic just because the language used to write the command break backword compatibilty

It’s a technofix for a problem that should be adressed way earlier in the pipeline, as is basically all carbon capture in general. These efforts divert energy and attention from solutions that actually matter.

Maybe, but it is better to try to fix a problem that exist than doing nothing hoping to fix the cause.

What would you suggest as “solutions that actually matter” ?

It is not wild in their eyes, they need to find a way to justify it after all.
But I think that this way they are opening the door to the possibility to be sued or to be considered responsable for what is on the play store. It is not a stretch to go from “I need to verify your identity” to “you are responsible for what you accept to put on the store”. They want control, they will get even responsability.

As do many people, but there are plenty others who will see this as being punished for doing the right thing, and will be less inclined to do so going forward

Maybe, but I am more optimistic about that.

And what would be the point of doing it right in future.

I do the right thing because it is the right thing and not because I expect something in return. Then I may contest the law because it is stupid or I can follow it to the letter to show how stupid it is.

In the end people that do the right thing will continue, like parents who don’t give a damn will continue to don’t give a damn about it.

True, but in my opinion social media are not seen as dangerous by a large part of the population, so nobody think that they should teach kids to protect themselves from them.

Personally, I’m of the view that a blanket ban is simply not going to work, and comes with all the same problems of the online safety act, mostly that the government, or the companies they employ to verify ages, simply cannot be trusted with that information.

Government already has your informations, problem are the companies. But in the end I think that the only viable option to have some sort of decent check is that the company try to verify the age with the government, which only answer yes|no.

If control needs to be implemented, it should be in having mandatory parental control options, but ultimately I believe it to be the job of the parents to utilise them, not the government.

Parental control failed time and again. In the end the problem are not the kids who follow what the parents say, but the others. And nowadays it seems that parents, first and foremost, are more than happy to let social media to keep their kid occupied.

On the other hand everyone think that social media are dangerous for the children so something need to be done.

I am afraid that you cannot have children protection without some sort of control

When people say this, I always think about how we ID for alcohol. If it’s the parents responsibility, they should never let their kid be able to go to the store to buy alcohol in the first place. The store shouldn’t have to ID people. Except most people don’t make this argument. I suppose if you agree with that statement, then you’d be consistent.

One could argue that kids can go to shops that sell also alcohol, but I can get the logic.
Problem is that a parent cannot check on their kids 24/7, so maybe having a check other than the parent could be a good idea.
Stores should absolutely check for ID since there is no way for them to verify that the parents did their job.

No, but it would be fun to sue everyone with Smart Glasses since they have not your permission to film you.

Wait to see that they discover that you don’t need a 3d printer to build a 3d printer…

The problem with this is that you need to alter the model printed. One thing is to print some yellow dots on a paper, another thing is to print some 3d marker in a model that you know nothing about with the risk to print a defective piece.

And anyway it should be done at the slicer level, the printer still only know that it need to rotate that motor for x steps, nothing else, it has no way to know what the next instruction would be.

Since the service Bambu Studio connects to isn’t required to run the software, their claim that keeping the service proprietary doesn’t violate the AGPL might be valid after all.

I think you misread something. The point seems to be that to be able to use your printer you need to connect to their cloud in any case. And this happened after a firmare update.