While factually wrong, "spectrum" descriptions are extremely useful in a couple situations:
- Easing people who view autism as a T/F boolean into viewing autism as a more complex, case-by-case thing.
- Describing how well various autistic people handle a given situation. (And "situation" may refer to broader things - like a job, or independent daily living.)
I'm not sure how someone is supposed to use attestations if PyPI refuses to support the forge they use? I'm not sure how this prevents a package getting maliciously uploaded via Github Actions? To me, this is going to lead to another bincode incident, because it conflates trust in the maintainer with trust in the platform.
This, and locking down everyone to a single blessed Linux distro would be... Rather difficult given how widespread various distros are. It is one thing for each distro to decide "Hey, let's use systemd". Gnome requires it but that's Gnome; there is nothing stopping you from using XFCE, or I3, or KDE, or... It is a totally different thing to make every Linux distro stop working (and have said distro go along with that) because that distro isn't the "blessed" one. Microsoft can pull this off because they're Microsoft and they have total control over one of the most dominant operating systems. Apple can pull this off because they're Apple and control everything from the hardware upwards. Linux is neither of these. I would go so far as to argue that the BSDs have a better chance of pulling off something like this than Lennart does. RedHat may have a lot of influence in the Linux world, but it certainly doesn't have some secret god mode switch it can flip and universally make every distro conform to it's wants and desires.
The approval layer problem is interesting because the naive approach (approve every action) doesn't scale, but the fully autonomous approach terrifies anyone running these in production...
No mention of compilation speed improvements? Very unfortunate. Compilation times slower than rust really hampers the devx of this otherwise decent language.
I've noticed the time-of-day variance too. My working theory is it's related to load, not model changes. Same prompt at 6am Sydney time (when US is asleep) consistently gets better results than the same prompt at noon. The "ignoring instructions" behavior usually means it's working from a compressed context where earlier instructions got summarized away.
Not really a bold claim. The scientific consensus is that intelligence is a highly polygenic and heritable trait, with genetic factors accounting for 50%-80% of the variations in intelligence. The rest is environmental (prenatal care, education, nutrition, lack of exposure to toxins like lead, etc.)
Mind you, Kotlin/Native (which is what gets used when you're compiling for iOS) doesn't have access to the JVM.
However, the Kotlin community is fundamentally all about open source, whereas Apple & iOS Devs have an allergy to it. The quality and quantity is already miles above the vast majority of what's in the Swift ecosystem. https://klibs.io has all the native compatible libs. And if you're targeting a platform where the JVM is available then yeah, it's massive. Compose makes UI tolerable compared to JWT too. Even large projects like Spring are Kotlin first nowadays.
"Memory safe" means that there are no memory safety issues. One of the most critical areas targeted by exploits is just gone. And this in turn leads -- according to the numbers published by Google -- to a severe reduction of exploitable issues.
C++ means you can not know whether code is safe or not. That does not mean it is unsafe, but assuming it is is the only sane way to handle this. Incidentally this is exactly what browsers do: They typically require two out of these three to be true for any new piece of code: "written in a memory-safe languge", "sandboxed" and "no untrusted inputs". This blocks C++ from some areas in a browser completely.
I disagree with take on Wikipedia or Wikimedia there was a lot of trash talk because they were totally obnoxious with their fundraising.
I donated once to Wikipedia and then I was getting Jimmy Wales in my mailbox basically like everyday.
That actually drove me away from ever wanting to donate to them. Then there was a lot of talking if they really are so much in need of money but that's different topic.
In contrast I donated to LibreOffice and it was perfectly quiet for one time donation and I am happy to donate from time to time as I use LibreOffice for my personal stuff.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot while building Murmel (https://murmel.social). One thing we wanted to avoid from day one was the “infinite engagement machine” model, so instead of pushing algorithmic slop, we just surface links that are already being shared by people you follow on Bluesky and Mastodon.
It ends up feeling much closer to “what’s interesting in my corner of the web right now?” and much less like a system trying to keep you trapped inside it.
Small scope, obviously, but I think more social tools should feel like utilities, not casinos.
Given electric cars are responsible for much bigger responsibilities than combustion cars (avoid driving into that bicyclist), there are new concerns here which beg extra consideration.
>The underlying tension is that "you own the car" means something very different from "you own the software running the car."
What does that mean? "The software" is a specific configuration of the hardware you own. How can you own the hardware and not the specific copy of whatever data is on it? Note that I'm not confusing the copy of the data with the IP rights to it.
If anything islamic countries never lack, its hierarchy. Endless, suffocating hierarchy, with all levels frozen in fear of the higher echelons. Then there is the clan-element. Certain families, have certain generals, whos underlings are of the same family, all the way down.
One has to abandon the view that what represents to the media as a modern state, with modern institution is actually a state. What you have is several, small states, city-kingdoms basically, ruled by one clan. Connected to one another in a tangle of agreements and contracts. Once you come to this point, you start to understand the structure of the thing and also why it is hard to decapitate.
While the donation banner doesn't seem like an issue to me, the WMF comparison is extremely inappropriate if they want to talk about appropriate amounts of donations.
The WMF is notorious for its donation banners making wildly exaggerated claims about the state of the Foundation (it needs some money to be operational, it is however not by any real stretch of the imagination in financial trouble or losing its independence because it doesn't get enough money; they have a massive endowment that can run Wikipedia for the next 50 years or so, and major corporations already give money to the WMF to keep it in the air, making the statements those donation messages give to regular readers very deceptive), scaring people in third world countries into parting with their meager savings because they are scared of the WMF vanishing through deceptive language and in general their donation drives are extremely intrusive to the respective Wikipedias.
I understand that the Document Foundation just wants to bring donations to the attention of their users, but the WMF is the worst point to compare it to.
Sometimes the band would get pennies from an album sold in stores, but they'd get almost the entire price of an album sold by them at a venue.
Authors would get something similar, they'd rarely sell out their advance, but could buy copies for pennies on the dollar and sell them at conventions.
