op, if you can’t see any spyware it’s probably fine.

If you say that you gotta strap it down first for safety.

Slap the top of the pc and exclaim “no spyware in this thing”.

My “I don’t need to save space, I want it for a different purpose” tee shirt is raising a lot of questions answered by my “I don’t need to save space, I want it for a different purpose” tee shirt.

Rocmuh balls

Ahh, let me be clear: systemd is bad. Age verification is maybe bad.

The age verification added to systemd is a field in the userdb json that the administrator can set. It’s intended to comply with California law that requires the device attest when queried.

If that isn’t clear enough: it’s a plaintext field in a text document set by the administrator.

If that still isn’t clear enough: the California law lets you lie and the systemd implementation is designed to accommodate that allowance.

Op should use devuan to not have systemd though, that shit sucks.

We say african american solar panels now 😤

Toyota, Nissan and Mitsubishi never made a 7.3 (although some of those Mitsubishi diesels are nice).

We need to bring back calling people slurs on the internet.

Just literally finding any reason to say no.

E: I want to be a little more clear, rather than policing language or tone, I responded to help that person understand. The mods did what they do and I believe rightly removed the offending posts.

I do believe the conditions around rust at the present moment create a perverse incentive. Because rust is a common language for junior developers and commonly has mit licenses and is very well suited to llm analysis from a running heap or code perspective it ends up being very useful and attractive to companies who want to get rid of senior devs, use more ai and not have to contribute their work back to the public.

That’s a perverse incentive.

Wow, where are those requirements published? I’m sure more people would follow the rules of the project if it were made clear that input is contingent upon some existing level of community involvement…

Of course, I have never seen such rules put in place except to exclude the most base mlm scam spammers on mailing lists, but that’s neither here nor there.

Shouldn’t my obvious willingness to engage with people about this topic serve as some sort of indicator that I’m serious and not “drive by”?

Shouldn’t the fact that I’m not being rude or crass like the other poster you brought up (to achieve rhetorical ends I’m not exactly clear on!) be an indicator that my input should be taken seriously?

So open source is only for people who already in the club then? Who gets to have a say? What are the restrictions on that say?

MIT defenders are laveyian satanists until someone has an opinion they disagree with lol.

I’m genuinely astounded that a recurring argument for simply dismissing suggestions to change the license to the one the original project had is “that’s my purse, I don’t know you!”

I could understand where you’re coming from if the people were, to a man, rude and demanding. Having read lots of threads about rust/mit rewrites of c/gpl stuff and participated in several, they’re pretty often just like me: politely presenting a perfectly reasonable argument even when met with very defensive pushback.

If you use Debian, even the simple “package popularity contest” is a default “no” in the installer.

That said, your personal conception of privacy is gonna be different than lots of other people’s.

Worth noting that a company used extremely small models and found something like 80+% of what mythos is claimed to have found.

The claimed circumstances are different, “mythos, go find exploits in open source codebases” vs “model, find a vulnerability in FreeBSD”, but there’s a subtle distinction.

Yes.

Open source is more than code, it’s software for everyone including non programmers.

Oh no, with so few gpl packages how will i maintain an unkempt beard and bald ponytail?! How will my ketchup stained Grateful Dead tee hold together at this critical low level of gpl? At this rate my bare feet will stop stinking up the break room!

Oh no, a non gpl package on my computer? How did you find out about my one weakness! I’m melting, melting! Oh, what a world, what a cruel, cruel world!

Yes. MIT is literally lacking that protection because it doesn’t force corporate users to lie or do their own work.

Should the fact that the powerful act with impunity when not challenged be an argument against challenging them? That’s a little facile…

Again, if you just want to feel good that the things I care about are going away, rest assured that llm output is going to remove the concept of copyleft in advance of a multipolar world where secrets and incompatibility are suddenly the order of the day.

It’s a mat with conclusions on it and you can jump on them, it’s a jump to conclusions mat!

The digital commons is protected by making sure changes to it and work that builds upon it remain in the commons, not by letting everyone go hog wild because copying only costs the amortized price of access, storage and electricity.

Gpl does that by requiring that things that use it also become gpl.

I’m really surprised to be explaining this. Some guy wrote a book that has a good overview of all this stuff but in the context of sampling almost 30 years ago, I’ll chase it down when I get near that shelf.

lol at “users don’t count”