I feel like you’re being incredibly generous with the usage of AI here. I feel as though the post and comment above refer to LLM/image generation AI. Those “types of ‘AI’” certainly don’t run all those things.

Or just have that book available in libraries.

“BS” then goes to repeat what the headline says.

Microsoft’s much-heralded Word app was storing documents as unencrypted DOCX files leaving them viewable by any malware.

“One of the great things about Linux is that everything can be treated as a text file… Hey wait a minute, ChatGPT is using fucking plaintext files??”

Congress creates agency to assist them in their duties. Agency works as intended and does them. Court blocks them by saying “you were made to do X, not X.”

The comment I made on reply to another comment hits here as well

We can think of weird edge cases all day, the fact is companies shouldn’t be able to hoard IP.

For fuck’s sake though, talk about strawman arguments. “Literally every doodle you make” when we’re talking about abandonware. My eyes nearly rolled out of my fucking head reading that. Do I need to start putting disclaimers on every post I make? “I am aware there is more nuance required before a law gets suggested but I sure wish companies couldn’t hoard old media without making it available, please don’t ‘um, actually’ me by suggesting I’m implying everyone must give me copies of their personal shopping lists.”

We can think of weird edge cases all day, the fact is companies shouldn’t be able to hoard IP.

You should be legally required to offer content you have on a copyright or else allow people to “pirate” it. The same way you must defend trademarks. If you don’t actually offer content you have the copyright for them you shouldn’t be allowed to prevent people from distributing it as abandonware.

Because of the momentum behind Blink/Chromium.

Jimmy Buffett is dead

And then another, where a trans woman is called “spam.”

Pretty clear they meant the PR was spam, not the person.

And then another, where a trans woman is called “spam.”

With comments like this it’s clear the author is just overreacting. They were clearly calling the PR spam, not the person. (And this is coming from someone who was definitely angry with them for denying the original PRs and stuff.)

Then the problem is the schema being under specified. Take the classic pet store example. It says that the I’d is int64. https://petstore3.swagger.io/#/store/placeOrder

If some API is so underspecified that it just says “number” then I’d say the schema is wrong. If your JSON parser has no way of passing numbers as arbitrary length number types (like BigDecimal in Java) then that’s a problem with your parser.

I don’t think the truly truly extreme edge case of things like C not technically being able to simulate a truly infinite tape in a Turing machine is the sort of thing we need to worry about. I’m sure if the JSON object you’re parsing is some astronomically large series of nested objects that specifications might begin to fall apart too (things like the maximum amount of memory any specific processor can have being a finite amount), but that doesn’t mean the format is wrong.

And simply choosing to “use string instead” won’t solve any of these crazy hypotheticals.

s̵t̵r̵o̵k̵e̵

Because it doesn’t look like stroke.

I’m trying to upload a picture of what it looks like on my phone but it won’t work. The lines don’t connect between characters. The line in the e seems to either be missing or not present at all. The k is barely visible and I didn’t notice it at first.

That said… I do with there was a way to do this easily in more programs without searching online for “Unicode font converter” to be able to get 𝖘𝖙𝖚𝖋𝖋 𝖑𝖎𝖐𝖊 𝖙𝖍𝖎𝖘.

Open washing, which is to say the proliferation of licenses that look FOSS if you squint but don’t work if you look closer, and practices related to these licenses. Here we have big players like Elastic, Redis, MongoDB, and numerous smaller cases as well. The practice of building off of the lavish advantages of being in the FOSS ecosystem, then pulling the rug and seeking exclusive commercial monopolization of the end result.

Someone help me understand why this is a problem. I am willing to accept that I’m missing something. As I see it,

1. Strong copyleft licenses like GPL attempt to put restrictions on what you can do with the software because of ways that corporations have exploited more permissively licensed FOSS projects.
2. Examples include the “TiVo” stuff in GPL v3 which forces users to not lock people into specific executables or AGPL which prevents a loop hole of wrapping GPL software in something to allow usage over a network and not be considered distributing.
3. Some FOSS advocates go so far as to call permissive licenses derogatory things like “cuck licenses” because of how they potentially allow corporations to exploit your work.
4. Mongo, Elastic, and now Redis felt exploited by companies and that AGPL (what I believe is generally accepted as the most restrictive FOSS license) was not restrictive enough to meet their needs and switched to SSPL. Mongo in particular was even already using AGPL.
5. The SSPL was rejected by the OSI because it allegedly discriminates against would-be SaaS providers which would violate OSD #6. I don’t see how that’s any more true than saying GPL v3 “discriminates against DVR manufacturers” because it had a clause specifically to combat what TiVo was doing or even saying AGPL “discriminates against SaaS providers” because it requires network use to be considered distribution (Google specifically warns against it).
6. AGPL closed a loop hole in GPL. That’s a fact. I don’t think that’s debatable. I believe SSPL is closing a loop hole in AGPL and I am confused why others disagree.
7. Mongo, Elastic, and Redis are available under the SSPL but the requirements are strict enough that no SaaS providers want to use them. They are also available under commercial licenses which lift those restrictions for a price. The goal of this is to allow the benefits of open source without being exploited. While people disagreeing with me about SSPL being FOSS might say that this is intended to make it difficult for SaaS providers, I’d point out that dual licensing is common and acceptable. Take Qt for example. You can either use Qt and be bound by GPL (which means it is difficult for you and you have to release some of your would-be proprietary code) or you can pay for a commercial license and not be bound by GPL.

So… My question is, what’s different about SSPL?

• Why is SSPL not considered FOSS while other restrictive licenses like AGPL and GPL v3 are?
• How are companies behind FOSS projects meant to prevent their code from being exploited by SaaS providers?
• Is there some hypothetical lesser version of SSPL that still captures the essence of it while still being more restrictive than AGPL that would prevent exploitation by SaaS providers?

and a pronoun selector.

Which is sort of silly because Discord profiles themselves have a place for pronouns and you can customize them per server (without needing to pay for anything unlike other per-server profile customizations). So, if anything, that shows that these servers are trying to be inclusive.

grumpy and meaningless bad takes all day every day

You don’t sound grumpy at all though lol

This is what I was getting at here https://programming.dev/comment/10849419 (although I had a typo and said big instead of bug). The problem is with the parser in those circumstances, not the serialization format or language.

Can you give a specific example? Might help me understand your point.