Then why open source something in the first place? The entire point is to make it public, for anyone to use however is useful to him or her, and often to publicly collaborate on a project together.
If I made something open source, you can train your LLM on it as much as you want. I'm glad my open source work is useful to you.
Plenty of people will gladly give you their hard work for free if you promise you'll return the favor. Or if you promise not to take your work and make others pay for it when they could just get it for free. Basically, help the people that want to embrace the freedoms of open source, but not the ones that are just in it for the free labour. Or at the very, very least, include a little "thank you" note.
AI doesn't hold up its end of the bargain, so if you're in that mindset you now have to decide between going full hands-off like you or not doing any open source work at all.
Given the amount of value I get from having AI models help me write code I would say that AI is paying me back for my (not insignificant) open source contributions a thousand times over.
Good for you, I guess? That doesn't really change the situation much for the people who do care and/or don't use AI.
I consider the payment I and my employer make to these AI companies to be what the LLM is paying me back for. Even the free ones get paid for my usage somehow. This stuff isn't charity.
> The entire point is to make it public, for anyone to use however is useful to him or her
The entire point isn’t to allow a large corporation to make private projects out of your open source project for many open source licenses. It’s to ensure the works that leverage your code are open source as well. Something AI is completely ignoring using various excuses as to why their specific type of theft is ok.
Do these jobs actually exist? My experience is that it's unrealistic to even get an "anywhere in EU" job here in Europe. Most are either hybrid remote, or "remote, but within driving distance of the office".
- The company is smaller and/or already geo-distributed and doesn't have the ability (or awareness) to monitor employee locations or deal with the tax/compliance obligations and so turns a blind eye, intentionally or not. The employees are generally operating in a grey area - either on tourist visas or for a company that isn't registered to employee people in their locale.
- The company actively creates a remote-first environment, working with their employees to employ them (compliantly) in their locale, usually through a third-party employer of record. These are very few and far between, but they exist.
- Companies, like Airbnb, that allow for a certain amount of time outside of a "home locale" per year (IIRC, it's 90 days). This isn't truly "global remote" but employees can move around more freely than in-office or locale-only employers.
Can't wait for a certain dictator to get a cellmate, so that our Persian and Kurdish friends can have freedom, including free unrestricted internet access.
Sure, a US invasion of Iran would undoubtedly lead to good things. And how can you say the Kurds are friends of the USA (I'm presuming you mean friends of the USA) given how many times they've been abandoned?
Just take a look at what happened to Libya, sometimes removing a "bad person" will cause a far worse situation to evolve. Like literal human slavery.
I will never cease to be amazed at the amnesia that arises when folks in power decide now is a good time to sell a war to the people.
In Iran they have had several police forces join the protestors at this point. Hopefully its a theme that continues and includes the military.
It only takes about 30% of the population supporting the regime plus military intervention to hold onto power. For some time now it seems that they've been below the 30% mark.
Israel is a terrorist regime that commits genocide against Palestinians. What use is it if the ones fighting it are terrorists as well? In your hypothetical world where Iran is the strongest regional power, what does that accomplish? The Palestinians trade Israeli and Hamas's oppression for being a protectorate of the Islamic Republic of Iran? I never really understood this line of thinking.
All correct. But something needs to be frontloaded.
1. Even if removing <bad government> would be good for that country, that doesn’t give some other state the right to do it. We let these entities get away with murder because they are our friends and they have the biggest guns, that’s it.
2. Always interrogate the real reasons why a state is doing it.
Now only after that we get to the facts like all those times it ended horribly for the people that <state> was supposed to help.
Panama was on 1989 and Venezuela situation it's closer to that, than the middle East countries, We are united in this, more than 80% are against the current government and we even voted him out. There is not religious divide as it happens in those countries, even by ethnicity most people are just mixed.
Yes, both Venezuela and (in your hypothetical) Iran would certainly be better and not worse after US intervention. How could they not, with such a great track record (Iraq, Lybia, Chile, Guatemala,...)!
Lora is fine if you want to send a very short message. Its not useful for much else.
Its also not a prevalent technology compared to general.internet/mobile phone.
Organising resistance with it is the pipe dream of those who play with chips and antennas, but its not something thats going to happen when crowds and mobs form up in a situation like this. Not least because the hardware is not accessible to your average citizen.
There are real-world examples of non-internet networks being created in authoritarian regimes. One example I've read about is in Cuba [1] but I presume there are others.
Yeah, that makes sense. I’ve curious if there are sneakernet things for communicating messages between passing mobile devices? Something that uses exist hardware and is actually used in practice.
Iran can end up in a much more dire state. It can end up another Syria / Libya.. or worse another aggressive group like Taliban can take hold of the central government.
I also fear that the looming, imminent war between Israel and Iran is going to make things works. I'm expecting Israel to start a conflict within the next 6 months (or sooner) with the aid of United States.
This is the weakest IRGC have been. Many of their allies have been crippled, they have water issues, economical issues and now protests.
I think that securing Venezuela's oil aids this, should IRAN attempt to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, it will allow Israel and United States to maintain reserves (to what extend, I don't know).
I think things are going to get difficult for Iranian people, no matter what.
It worked out poorly for America — we got stuck in a long expensive war that we got basically nothing from — but for the average Iraqi? I'd much rather be an Iraqi citizen than an Iranian one, and that wouldn't have been true in the 90s. Saddam was pretty evil — and a bad leader. Iraq's GDP per capita is 6x higher today than it was in 2002, a year before the invasion.
It worked out pretty poorly for the average Iraqi. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed (some estimates put it at around 1 million), and millions of people became refugees.
Citing the relative GDP per capita number is reductive and doesn’t give a good picture of the average person’s life.
The GDP should be banned as a metric for being a life quality proxy, it's insane how so many people still refer to it although proven to neglect so many parts of what counts into LQ. To OP: Go check out Doughnut Economics - the book does a good job clearing up economical fallacies & mismodelling of such things.
This is a pretty wild counter-factual. Reminds me of a report I saw about a hipster cafe existing in Baghdad 2025 as proof of success of the US invasion. What would the alternative have been? How do you factor in the loss of life? I suppose the real answer is asking Iraqis...
GP sessions being around 20 minutes is pretty standard in North American and European countries. You can't have standard hour-long GP sessions, as it'd become impossible to make a timely appointment, no matter which system.
Can confirm having experienced both the USA and Dutch systems now. In both countries is my visit only about 20 minutes + another 15-30 sitting in the lobby because they doctor is always running behind schedule.
In theory, the Dutch system will take care of your more quickly for "real" emergencies as their "urgent care" (spoedpost) is heavily gate kept and you can only walk in to a hospital if you're in the middle of a crisis. I tried to walk into the ER once because I needed an inhaler and they told me to call the call the hotline for the urgent care... this was a couple of months after I moved.
That said, I much prefer paying €1800/year in premiums with a €450 deductible compared to the absolute shitshow that is healthcare in the USA. Now that I've figured out how to operate within the system, it's not so bad. But when you're in the middle of a health crisis, it can be very disorienting to try and figure out how it all works.
Ever wonder why famous people and celbrities always seem so healthy? They have unfettered access to well paid doctors. People with lots of money can spend literal days with GPs, constantly trying and testing things based on feedback loops with the same doctor at the same time.
When people are forced to have a consultation, diagnosis, and treatment in 20 minutes, things are rushed and missed. Amazing things happen when trained doctors can spend unlimited time with a patient.
You make a good point, but the key here is that there are a lot less people with that kind of money. The lower volume of patients is why that's possible. There are a lot more people in the middle class. So sessions have to be limited to ensure everyone has fair, equal and timely access to a doctor.
And of course, GPs typically diagnose more common problems, and refer patients to specialists when needed. Specialists have a lower volume of patients, and are able to take more time with each person individually.
Ever wonder why famous people and celebrities seem so unhealthy with mental health and substance abuse conditions? I'm all for improving affordable access to healthcare but most people wouldn't benefit from spending more time with doctors. It's a waste of scarce resources catering to the "worried well".
While some people are impacted by rare or complex medical conditions that isn't the norm. The health and wellness issues that most consumers have aren't even best handled by physicians in the first place. Instead they could get better results at lower cost from nutritionists, personal trainers, therapists, and social workers.
There's a difference in Steve Ballmer's Microsoft and Satya Nadella's Microsoft. Ballmer was a villain, that hurt the company, but he was smart and never caused too serious destruction. Nadella might be slighly less of a villain, but he has no clue what he's doing and is driving the company straight into the ground.
Microsoft would be such an easy fix to get back on the right path, but Nadella is not going to do that, and nobody is going to make you or me the CEO.
>Microsoft would be such an easy fix to get back on the right path, ...
Why treat workers right, properly resource teams, and build quality stuff on a roadmap that looks beyond the next quarter when you can just treat your workers, product and customers as if they're all disposable trash.
Basically the standard Fortune 500 playbook with few exceptions.
>...but Nadella is not going to do that, and nobody is going to make you or me the CEO.
That's a good thing. When they eventually fail completely and sell their assets, it'll be a source of cheap datacenters for the competition—at least assuming demand eventually chills out.
> Why treat workers right, properly resource teams, and build quality stuff on a roadmap that looks beyond the next quarter when you can just treat your workers, product and customers as if they're all disposable trash.
Because capitalism is a fact, and actually trying to build the best possible products for your users will give you a market-leading position which your greedy competition can't defeat, and which will give you the most profit as a result. Big CEOs and shareholders still don't get this.
Microsoft has a foothold in the market, and they may feel impossible to defeat, but they're not. If this is their attitude, they will lose.
> That's a good thing. When they eventually fail completely and sell their assets, it'll be a source of cheap datacenters for the competition—at least assuming demand eventually chills out.
If they continue like this, yes. But if they just get their act together, it would be a win-win for everyone. The company isn't doomed, other than by its own active doing.
You can disable all of that within seconds. There's no reason for it not to be included because of that, as all the code running on the client is open-source. If distros only shipped software without commercial interests (why even..?), it'd be an unusable mess of barely maintained hobby projects.
So "drug advice" refers to drug abuse, not medicine. ChatGPT gave several bad replies, but this was in between constant warnings about the dangers, which were ignored. The guy even told ChatGPT to "[not] get into the medical stuff about the dangers".
Why did ChatGPT give the bad replies? It appears that it fell for the false "harm reduction" narrative. This should obviously be improved.
Saying that he "trusted ChatGPT for drug advice" or attributing the overdose to ChatGPT is straight up misleading. This is ragebait, and clearly not from a reliable source.
If I made something open source, you can train your LLM on it as much as you want. I'm glad my open source work is useful to you.
reply