nilshauk

The genocide of the Palestinians (as argued by the UN) triggers the genocide convention obligating states and individuals to act.

It even comes in the effect at the very probability of genocide occuring. Preventing new armaments being sold to Israel is thus the rational and responsible thing to do, for example what Spain has been doing by refusing the transportation of arms through their country. This off course earns you some powerful, heavily moneyed enemies.

Edit: This was an attempt to explain why civilians are spray painting Elbit's military planes.

"just cost of doing business." - some Meta boardroom.

Codeberg's paying members can off course vote on policies of their own non-profit. More power to them. You have the freedom to not use their service. There are ample alternatives.

What a clever trick to throw more money (governmental subsidies) into a sinking ship (xAI and "AI" in general). Perplexingly this maneuver will probably boost stock prices thus creating more monopoly money to burn resources with.

I detest AI on the grounds that it causes an overuse of our planet's resources as well as stealing IP and exploiting underpaid data workers.

However, if Mozilla can launch something capable that steals the thunder from all the closed source AI alternatives that might make the bubble pop finally.

Stock markets shook when Deepseek came on the scene and proved that clever coding might make up for using older hardware. The market leaders' moat suddenly didn't seem so impenetrable. In that same vein Mozilla might make a real dent by truly commodifying AI. AI stocks are highly valued currently because there's an idea that the leaders have something no one can copy.

Ok so Google ignores W3C on WEI.

But could someone else create a W3C proposal that could counteract WEI? It wouldn't have to implementation-specific but rather one or more principles drawing a line in the sand that shouldn't be crossed like what WEI is built to achieve?

AI progress won't be dead in the water if it respects copyright laws. Yes, being free to just freely grab any data is infinitely easier. But having to rely on properly licensed datasets or asking users for consent should be the norm for ML development IMHO.

Also, If we had trained some A.I. on the Windows codebase and started freely using suggestions given by it I bet Microsoft would scream copyright infringement in a heartbeat.

So happy to learn of this and I wish them best of luck in their efforts. And I'm surprised to find so many people klinging to Copilot.

We shouldn't shed any tears for a megacorporation which shows such blatant disregard for the licensed works of people's labour.

Yes, AI is here to stay but we should be able to build AI that respects copyright. Yes, it's easier to just steal data and call it fair use. Whether or not that's stealing will be interesting to try in court.

I love that they included an ortholinear keyboard and open schematics. Definitely keeping my eyes on this.

I’m not happy about people losing money.

However, I’m happy if this means money will be invested in innovation towards saving the planet, rather than finding new ways to burn resources with proof-of-work-based crypto.

Wow. Thanks for the headsup! I’ll have to look into this.

Yeah that makes sense. And “nobody got fired for picking technology X from large company Y”, there’s also that type of thinking.

Very much agree. Though there’s a line between implementing cryptographic algorithms yourself vs. implementing cookie based authentication.

Cryptography is something I’d leave to standard libraries. However, when it comes to authentication it might not be that hard to implement some cookie or token logic as long as the actual cryptography is handled by some well tested library.

I don't think my article shuts the door on domain specific languages even though it doesn't offer it as an answer. It could be an answer. By relying a bit less on frameworks and writing more code ourselves we have the chance to make our code fit the domain we're working with better. For now I wanted to wrestle a bit with the idea of always pulling in frameworks to do things.

> If your thing has been built so often already that much of the logic can be factored out into a framework, great - may as well use that

I agree, though that often comes with some costs and tradeoffs like I tried to outline in the article.

That's true we might not have been able to mobilize so much productivity so quickly for business without throwing frameworks at the problem. However, I think also a lot of effort might have been wasted by reinventing wheels and rewriting application many times over because some framework or language fell out of fashion and hiring for it became difficult.