astrobe_

The same method is used to block sites that don't respect the decisions the French people have made regarding the limits of the freedom of speech (no hate speech, no terrorist proselytism, no pedo, etc.).

Granted, that's the theory.

When the demands come from a company on the basis of copyright/intellectual property (that is, exclusive broadcasting rights), one can feel less comfortable about this affair; even thought the judgement mentions that the case is backed by the ARCOM, the french authority for broadcasting, which should instead IMHO deal with a couple or two of private TV channels that are obvious vectors of fake news.

But, this is the same copyright that can protect you when you publish programs, source code, images, etc., even when you use a free and open license; the licence has meaning thanks to the copyright.

It's funny to see LLMs being mentioned, because this is yet another case where "good enough" is, after all, not good enough once you know how "good enough" should be.

Including development of AI models?

Amusingly, LLMs are good at detecting patterns because they are modelled after the human brain, which is very good at detecting patterns (this e.g. is annoying when you are a game developer who wants to reuse assets). People are still able to tell if the source of an artwork (or text) because LLMs tend to output "patterned" text (like the famous "load bearing"). That being said, the false positive/negative rate of humans for this task has yet to be measured.

AIs cannot invent things like cubism, surrealism or hip-hop.

Or maybe it can; the early image generators famously did output horrific images sometimes because of their limitations, but these outputs qualify nonetheless creations.

Now the interesting thing is that it is humans who evaluate them as horrific, worthless or interesting.

Certainly AIs could pretend they have that sort of opinions and judgement, but hopefully humans will remain more interested in the opinions of other humans.

I think the answer is that they don't, indeed, need source control but just a way to let their agents resolve editing conflicts. It's basically yet another message board.

I don't disagree, but having remote monitoring capabilities on a professional fridge is most likely not a hipster feature. Even mid-size supermarkets have dozens of them, with different temperature settings; they can fail, customers can block the doors, etc. You do want to receive an alert when something is wrong.

GP might realize sooner or later that they need larger security margins, for when unexpected things happen; like really having to go to the toilets, spilling the coffee they just made, etc.

They can shift their daily schedule e.g. 30 minutes earlier and peacefully drink their coffee at home. They also should eat something at home or on their way, because hurrying in a cold morning with an empty stomach is not good. Source: personal experience. I did that for months as a student until I passed out one day in class.

If they don't like waiting for the train in the cold, they probably can find a warm place near the station, and wait there a little.

If you're going for ad hoc solution to that specific problem, just charge $99/year or $102/year instead, depending on how you feel like about profit margins.

I've always believed that they kept 32 bits ints on 64 bits CPU as a default because going full 64 bits would make the code and data structures bigger for "no reason" (it's not often that one hits the 4.10^9 limit in system code (if you don't count timestamps, that is)). For instance, a load-register-with-immediate instruction would normally take 5 bytes (opcode+value) on 32 bits, but 9 bytes on 64.

> Jenson theorized that the reason there are so many desktop environments, window managers, and Wayland compositors for Linux—as well as alternative clipboard managers—is because the desktop isn't quite working right for users

And it always will be, because "users" is plural. It is not a defect in the design of the desktop or whatever has "too many" alternatives. The mistake would be to think that "one-desktop-fits-all".

Also, the only good reason to change things is to fix problems. Nobody's really asking for "moar modernity". Starting from design theories is plain wrong. Ask users about their problems first, and the use your design knowledge to analyse and fix them.

> Strategy is another part of UX; understanding who the target user is, and determining what they want. Deciding what is important, and what is not; what will the development team prioritize and what will it ignore? "The fastest way a UX designer can save your team time is to help you say no."

He is not talking about users but customers.

That's how FOSS works: some users find it annoying to have to place and resize their windows manually, so some of them made "tiling window managers". Many Linux DEs also had virtual desktops a million years before Windows because FOSS is made by users, for users.

Socialism means different things depending on where you are, even within Europe. For some socialism is the same as communism, for others socialism simply means social-democracy.