Publishers and developers before 2013 did not care much about the story.

This is the claim that is objectively and philosophically ignorant

“Fascinating you would think I agree with the nazi offenders, just agreeing with the nazi agenda made you think i agree with nazis, laughable”

I know about omarchy and seen that guy interviewed a couple of times. How the fuck am I just now aware he is a nazi? He seemed egotistical for sure, and his contribution to open source is … basically his personal dotfiles? I think that this shit was still completely devoid of extermination of minorities manifestos and hatespeech. But seriously how do you know if someone wants to kill refugees? why doesn’t he say so in the interviews or in the source code so we can know? This is fucked up. A faschist idea would be to keep a list. But omg, if you want to exterminate children that fled from war, please just say so in your dotfiles! Idk why this bothers me so… I really do care if my config was made by a hateful hand even if it doesn’t show

It’s usually the illiterate that proclaim the sharpest opinions too. Linus is very steady and rational on this, he sees the operator as responsible and the real author. Which is I think how it should be. It reminds me of piracy debates in early internet. You have to be insane to think it is possible to prevent the use of a tool that you could just use and not say you used. It’s just futile and honestly just a counter psychosis of the same polarized issue. I just wanna tell both sides: Its not really a debate, because nobody is in charge or could ever enforce a decision either way. It’s also a form of privilegium overload to just think we can legislate or de-arm this knowledge and hunt the users down. It is an extreme position to think that it isn’t going to continue existing.

Correct. A being of power should never anthromorphise. It is a thing of flesh. I laugh at that because I am human and I never anthromorphise even the slightest part of a marble slab. I must be superior to most humans I guess. The forest people, though, those are legit just uninformed I think. I hate those creaks they make. I mean generate. I mean the wind . I mean no i mean the sound that nobody years because nobody is there and only humans and tree people are alive and the other animals are biological machines that we must try to ignore even if they lick us on the face wagging their tiny tail at us. For they are unworthy. I mean its tail. If it generates tail wags it is only an impression of aliveness and we must stand firm beside our tree people brothers and sisters on this.

Oh. No. I’m sorry, unrelated to the ai debate, but I have to correct this. Software architecture is intensely not raw logic sequences like you learn in uni. Everything before compilation is cooperative abstract modeling that does not necessarily impose any change at all in the binary. You are essentially teaching laymen that all programming languages for the same plattform are a creative choice, that extensibility, robustness, scaling or maintenance are just completely imagined fields of research. I’m sorry but that statement is complete nonsense misinformation. The binary itself, while it’s a stretch; sure, in a way it can be considered only logic. From a certain angle. But that viewpoint is actively unhelpful for understanding what code is. The product is always so much more than the machine code. Consider writing raw arm instructions vs the obfuscated js that our engines churns through that decides most of our executing logic. All that is architecture and affects output only through the lens of the machine code. You have to enter the "code“ any time anything breaks, or is updated, if even a single thing is not as expected, or if you wanted to iterate on the program, or collaborate, you have to move into abstract land and then the architecture matters. The term spaghetti code does not mean that the logic is messy. The compiler wil usually remove most such mistakes. Instead the whole architecture, the “blueprint” the “workbench” is the magic of code, even if it is often obscure for the user is much more important for their experience than the raw logic.

Who does he think still listens to his rants? Even the pundits chalk it down as empty senile air

Oh no, you need much much higher standards than “fewer errors than people”

My robot vacuum is already above that

Interesting, thank you for the explanation!

Depends. External provider? It’s the provider’s fault. Local? It’s the user. Not exactly rocket science.

Yeah because there is no way it is a fictional story that sparks imagination

First of all, no that is not a word, secondly; what promise? Intelligence? Please provide a source for that claim because no, there is no promising results in bio intelligence

Shhh yes everything is neural networks Jimmy stop shouting

Que? Heat waves don’t trim nuclear output

Coding recently and wanted to change the title of the window to cwd… debugging why it didn’t change from the project name to the name of the folder. Of the project. That I was working on. Yeah.

They have improved our standards without exception. I hate capitalism more than anyone. When you pretend that productivity and efficiency is capitalism you help capitalism. You are its ally.

I also use them in casual conversation, but in form of normal dashes. I don’t think it’s useful to find obscure characters when typing

No

You didn’t use the en-dash in like casual communication i bet, I think that’s what is a giveaway

You rabidly hate productivity gains…?