48terry

Fortunately, Codeberg is not free software. It's a service provider providing a service. They themselves can be as non-neutral and non-free as they like. The software beneath it all remains free.

Seriously, just host your own Forgejo if it's that much of a problem. It's right there.

> they could've addressed it directly by imposing limits/quotas

For one, they've already done this to an extent. For two, they're also doing this by deciding what projects are and are not welcome on their service in the first place.

If 9 people eat an apple or two a day but a tenth person wants to eat 100 apples a day, we don't have to set some apple limit. We can tell the tenth person to pound sand and keep giving everyone else the apples they want.

The fun thing about communities is they can allow or disallow whoever they want, and if you don't like their decisions you can find a community more closely aligned with you.

Codeberg is a service.

> I didn't look into codeberg really

So, politely, why are you posting?

No one's guaranteed to third-party hosting or communities. The software is there. Host it.

If no third-party or community wants to take you in, then I suppose you're going to have to start one for like-minded people. If there aren't any, then I suppose you've lost the marketplace of ideas.

Isn't that how this is supposed to work?

I thought "don't like it, fork it" was the open source credo? You don't have to trust them as stewards. Fork and maintain it yourself then.

Is this the same Anthropic speaking as the one that's constantly terrified their newest thing is too dangerous and might destroy humanity (now available for $20/month or pay-as-you-go usage credits)?

Weird how every new model seems hyped up as the most dangerous yet and the one that will destroy society as we know it. They are also a commercial product.

Just 5 more years and $500 billion more, bro. We're still so early.

Your second paragraph appears to be 3 different instances of saying "X does not necessarily point to productivity gains... but in the case of AI, X definitely means productivity" without really saying why that is true or why other explanations do not fit.

Adoption meaning productivity supposes there are no other dominant factors for the AI push nor AI retention. It is possible for practices to be picked up or continued in spite of causing productivity DROPS. What studies have suggested are factors that make for productive work environments and what is actually enforced in the workplace are different things.

> The way I see it, AI is going to change the world radically. It could be for the worse, the better, or a mix of both, but in my mind there's no doubt.

Worthless statement. Wow, you suspect something can make things better, worse, or both? That's a keen insight there.

> For reference, radio waves were discovered in 1886, Marconi used them for communications in 1895, and while telephone and radio coexisted for many decades, it wasn't until the 1995 that mobile phones and wireless technologies started picking up.

We are still so early.

I mean, we have advertised them in multiple super bowls, have companies that basically own tech news (incredulous journalists will repeat any stupid insane shit a CEO wants to say), that say they're valued at over a trillion dollars and nobody with the power to argue those finances seems willing to do anything but agree. We have built hundreds and hundreds of acres of data centers (and made deals for data centers that are never going to happen) that demand *billions* per month. They are devouring all the silicon to where people are visibly seeing the price of hardware double, triple, more in price. Work places insist on employees using AI (then pulled back because it turns out this stuff costs money and it's not fun anymore when it's not subsidized).

But we just need more time, more eyes, more people looking at it.

Where in the radio wave timeline did this happen?

> In every of these threads there's a bunch of snarky comments, either acting like this class of attack is exclusive to npm, or that nothing has been done about it. I don't think that's fair.

I mean it keeps happening lmao. You can track npm attacks these on a calendar. Someone made a npm parody of the classic "no way to avoid this" The Onion article.

It's great there's work to stop it all but also... it keeps happening. I find it funny in a "here we go again" way.

Plus the dozens of other means of changing a website's styling from the user's side.

Does anything wrap up the AI craze more succinctly than boldly calling AI the perfect use case for an already-solved problem?

Right? Yeah, everything's decoupled and "flexible", but if your stack is dependent on half a dozen different third parties uninterested or uninvested in your project, you gotta watch like a hawk for when those services decide they need to be worse and charge more.