At some point, no matter how something is mentioned, someone will offer criticism. I guess that in roughly 20% of all HN front page posts, at least one person comments on the terminology used. I do not see this as an argument against using accurate terminology, but rather as a reminder that it is impossible to meet everyone's expectations.
There are other terms that are similarly controversial, such as "thinking models". When you describe an LLM as "thinking", it often triggers debate because people interpret the term differently and bring their own expectations and assumptions into the discussion.
How safe is that to set up for novice it people? I have a pi with pi-hole on it and am thinking about putting immich on it but the fact that it exposes itself outside my LAN frightens me.
I have it set up in a container that I keep updated. Then it's reverse proxied by another container which runs nginx proxy manager, which keeps the HTTPS encryption online. So far, the maintenance has only been checking whether a new version has been released and docker pulling the images, then restarting the containers.
I used to use it for that. A few months ago I got an Android system update and it no longer works for that. It just does web searches if I try. Now it's trying to push me into this thing where it takes a screenshot and tells me what's on the screen. I've never once cared about that.
Failing to find any way to get the alarm thing back, I turned off the entire assistant thing.
No, I did not. From the article. This is, unfortunately, a straightforward case of poorly-considered moralizing with extremely bad consequences.
> Overall, these ideas lead me to believe that the open source movement needs to see itself as in a larger social context. Can we shift the balance of power away from massive companies and their massive harms? Can we prevent Nazis from using our software? Should we even try?
> I know my goal: shift the default in open source from “it’s free for anyone to use” to “please don’t use this if you’re evil”. I don’t just want to do this for my little project; I want to slowly change the discourse. I’m not sure how to do that effectively, if it’s even possible.
Whoops you're right. I read it twice and completely overlooked that part. Also one of the seven bullet points points in that direction.
I read it as a more "big corps exploiting open source devs" take (as were six out of seven bullet points), but they did indeed slip that in, and concluded with it even.
Upvoted but felt bad for not replying. Yeah, I initially read it as a generic "big corps exploiting open source devs" take as well. Not often someone actually says "whoops you're right" so kudos - not sure I would've done the same.
The article is an interesting philosophical situation where you know the intent is good. But maybe, they took it too far without any of the necessary caveats.
If you are poor, you should be terrified, because what those policies mean is that the rich are pulling the ladder up behind themselves now that they’re rich beyond their wildest dreams.
reply