cecilkorik

Zero. Zero accurately. They don't even talk about it, because they don't care. The arbitrary cruelty is a bonus feature.

This feels like marketing disguised as criticism.

"9:40 AM EDT on August 17, 2026" so... yesterday. This is old news. Not to defend github, but it's currently working fine for me and has been all day. Can confirm yesterday was a shitshow.

a camera openly displayed, but off,

I know enough about technology and big tech companies to be completely unwilling to believe that any device claiming to be "off" or even just to have some feature "off" can be trusted not to be collecting data anyway, at least in certain situations. They have completely and utterly destroyed that trust, and are at this very moment still dancing gleefully on its corpse. It doesn't really make any sense for them to act surprised when we refuse to believe a company like Meta will take anyone's privacy seriously.

I think we're already at the point where Linux is more compatible with Windows software than Windows itself is.

Yes it's important to always update to make sure you also have the newest security holes in addition to the old ones that nobody's noticed. /s

Hobbyists are working in the billions or tens of billions. Trillions is insane. I'm sure some people can run it, but not many.

It's used as a test of basic intelligence, but it's also seriously incomplete and maybe a test of more advanced intelligence would be to have someone explain at least some of the many ways in which it's incomplete.

If I told you to let me have your 5 treats later so that I can turn them into more treats than there are particles in the entire universe and I'll give you half, you should probably call bullshit on that.

If I'm starving to death and I'm not going to survive until however much "later" is unless I eat one of those treats right now, then choosing "five treats later" would actually be the wrong choice.

This is not always a clear choice, either. The test is interesting, and it tells you a lot about how certain people think, but it isn't universal, and it doesn't actually prove anything. You need to understand and interpret why the answer makes sense in each context. And the context is always changing. We live on a changing planet. It is time to start thinking about how the context of "5 treats later" might have changed, and whether we are going to survive until whenever "later" is, and whether it is actually physically possible to provide all of those 5 treats in the hypothetical future that we are imagining.

Or is it money that has now been turned into fictional non-existent money, because it was stolen from our own future, where it was previously being held (we thought) safely in trust for us. They're stealing the money from us. From our taxes, from our government funds and institutions, from our pensions. It's our money. At least it nominally was, before all this happened. We're being looted. The robbers are in our vault, they are packing our money into bags labelled "AI" as we speak.

Correct. There's no direct way to prove they are or aren't using their own open source server code, but if they weren't, the behavior could still be proven to match or be different, and as soon as the behavior is different, that would prove they're not running the open source code, and if hypothetically they aren't running their own open source code and they intend on avoiding detection of that fact, then they still have to make their closed-source infrastructure exactly match the behavior of the open source software. And as long as they're doing that, then the open source functionality remains a perfect predictor of the behavior of their infrastructure. So it's still pretty transparent in that sense. But technically, of course, we don't really know, and that's a given.

Self-hosting is still preferable, and the only method I consider personally acceptable.

I use open source to avoid mysteries.

How many hoops will they have to jump through? Will those hoops change over time to continue to make it difficult or they still find ways to monetize those hoops while technically complying with the settlement? Will they still hold ultimate control over the ecosystem and use lawsuits and deliberate engineering to drive third-parties out?

Spoiler: The answer to all of the above is almost certainly going to be yes. These sort of agreements are toothless because they're meant to be. The fight for right to repair is not a fight that is going to end as long as it's more profitable to do the opposite.