First, please don't use the word 'hate'. Like, at all. We have enough of that in the world, it never made anything better, approachable or appealing. It's at best clickbaiting.
Secondly, it's easy to say "things need to be done". But nobody wants to pay more taxes to build alternatives. Nobody wants to waste half of their vacation traveling by slower means. Nobody wants to wait decades for alternative infrastructure to be built. Nobody wants the alternative infrastructure built near them.
It's funny that people who want high speed rail instead of plains usually railly up to block building it nearby - "yes, we want it, but not here".
I don't like Nintendo, and even here they totally failed their communication because there was 100 ways to put this more user-friendly, but they are right in not issuing refunds. Things can go on sale, you don't go and ask for refund because you bought it a few months before at full price and sue companies for not telling you in advance there will be sale, when and for how much discount.
It's just a different analogy but the point is the same, why not ban poisonous ingredients? It implies poisonous mushrooms also, but doesn't criminalize cooking.
Well, if I use AI, it's still considered I wrote the code, just with help. And I personally never saw the code nor had access to it. Also, whatever I implemented must be clean room implementation then. If it was that simple, then we would not have the copyright issue to begin with. LLM can't be an author nor can it be legally liable.
This can be true, but ultimately it's up to the target user group. Smartphone cameras are more than fine for the general consumer, and classic cameras have bulky size to accomodate the proper hardware for pros. The average consumer wants to both take photos at any given moment, and in parallel never carry bulky hardware for pro-level photos.
How can I prove that I have ownership over code I wrote myself, and that it isn't copyrighted somewhere in the world?
How can anyone prove that code is written by a human or AI (if you don't commit obvious AI harness files and folders)?
Developers also "generate" code and are also "trained" on code they written as freelancers or employees for others which is potentially copyrighted. In that aspect just because it's written by hand, doesn't imply the writer has copyright on it.
Then why not say it's not allowed to upload code you don't have copyright to?
This would make sense, nobody would question it and it would generally also cover AI-generated code.
Mentioning vibe coding just upgraded it into a social and moral topic, while the sole fact that AI generated code is no issue at all, just that there is not a general concensus in the world who holds the copyright to that code.
It's kinda like blanked banning cooking, because you can't cook without a knife, and knife can be used as a weapon.
US-based software does have hosting physically in EU, which makes it in the same legal domain, but US has the CLOUD Act, where US can force their companies, even if abroad, to pull data to US. So, being simply in the same legal domain or country does not make it sovereign. You actually need your own hardware and the full software stack where there is no foregin ownership to actually be sovereign.
And if you just scale up from individual persons to nations/blocks, whats the difference between "I will not use Google Drive, I will selfhost Nextcloud" and "EU will not use Google Drive, it will selfhost Nextcloud".
Me in this case is just not a person, but a country/political entity. EU is selfhosting instead of using US-provided hosting.
Please stop calling seflhosting "digital sovereignty". It's just a marketing buzzword, but basically there is nothing there except "I will host it myself".
It peaked right before cloud and streaming became a thing. Since then, we as consumers lost control of it, and the big tech is since then doing what it wants with it.
Dude, you are racist. Learn to accept people of different opinion. Don't fuckin call me nazi when you would love to put people like me in a concentration camp and let the gas flow. Don't act you are better than me in any way. Fuck off nazi scum right back.
I assume then you must be from the USA, because your gender and religion argument is not really an issue in the rest of the world. People don't really mind and don't get triggered by this, since nobody is doing this with the intent to hurt anyone.
I speak from a local perspective from what I see and what I hear. I was waiting on a station for a tram, and a couple of shady dudes, clearly not locals, were constantly going up and down the station, looking at me, going around me and often behind me although there was more place in front of me where I can see them. I DO NOT WANT TO FEAR if they will attack me!
I was walking with a few friends throughout the center, when we noticed a group of them following us. We turn into a street, they turn into a street. We move faster, they move faster. We slow down, they slow down. When we finally stopped, turned around and looked at them, then they went on somewhere else.
I do feel fear with them around me. You can't deny that. You can't understand that unless you are in the same situation. It's easy for you to be "righteous" when you don't need to live in that way. Fear for yourself, for your friends, for your family.
And there is no fucking reason why I or anyone else should fear walking around at any time of day or night. How much crime was avoided, but the intent to do it was there? I can say I never fealt so in danger around locals. NEVER. And here we are, with people justifying why I should apparently live in fear because that's the right thing to do.
Imagine the failed democracy, where the elected representative says that what failed him was pursuing his own agenda, instead of the will of the people he is supposed to represent.
I agree. And I think the push for remigration is not because people inherently want them out, as much as we simply can't handle that influx of people properly, and we risk creating ghettos and parallel societies that can't live with the domestic society.
Also, a lot of those people simply refuse to integrate and some said in interviews that they head we will just give them everything and they can live in our countries same as they did at their home, in terms of culture. This is a false narrative that was fed to people.
We need to set boundaries and enforce them, and the entire topic is created because we didn't have boundaries upfront and we are still not enforcing them as we should. We can set up strict integration requirements, and send back everyone who refuses or is unable to meet them. This is fair and would quickly filter out the bad apples as they would be first to refuse.
In the end, people want to know they are safe if they walk outside at night, and this was not the case in many places since 2015.
Don't be an uncivilized native, white, church going man, and learn to properly communicate online. You sound like an angry kid. I stated my reasons and am open to discussions and you barge here like a wild Tarzan banging your chest and throwing big words thinking it makes you smart and right.
And the reasoning "there is bad men everywhere" doesn't change the fact that on one side you have the majority who is fine and a few bad apples, and on the other side you have the bad apples as the default. Ask in Afganistan should women have rights and you will quickly find it's not a few bad apples, its their way of life. And no, we do not want that way of life in our, different society.
This doesn't mean they all need to go, but there should be very firm integration requirements, and if you don't want to assimilate and live by our common standards, you should leave. You can't come into someone elses home and expect the owner to live by the guests rules. It's common sense and our hospitality that we did show - is being abused.
I can. You have people of a world view that women are objects that are created soley to serve men, in any way they see fit. Those people migrate in societies where women are treated equal. The same migrants have in their world view that such women should be killed because of doing things they consider illegal in their world view, ignoring the fact that killing in the local society is unacceptable.
And now, think as a father of a daughter who sees more and more men migrating into your society who think your daughter should be killed for the way she dressed, and will not restrain from killing her if they decide to do so in their own world view.
Find a way to tell me we should accept those immigrants, with directly opposing world views to ours, which think what we consider a crime is moral and necessary, into our society and accomodate for their needs. Accept them. Knowing very well we would probably be killed for being us in their own country.
You may be referring to the immigrations in the US, but having a problem with a Latino and having a problem with a jihadi man is not the same.
First, please don't use the word 'hate'. Like, at all. We have enough of that in the world, it never made anything better, approachable or appealing. It's at best clickbaiting.
Secondly, it's easy to say "things need to be done". But nobody wants to pay more taxes to build alternatives. Nobody wants to waste half of their vacation traveling by slower means. Nobody wants to wait decades for alternative infrastructure to be built. Nobody wants the alternative infrastructure built near them.
It's funny that people who want high speed rail instead of plains usually railly up to block building it nearby - "yes, we want it, but not here".
I don't like Nintendo, and even here they totally failed their communication because there was 100 ways to put this more user-friendly, but they are right in not issuing refunds. Things can go on sale, you don't go and ask for refund because you bought it a few months before at full price and sue companies for not telling you in advance there will be sale, when and for how much discount.
It's just a different analogy but the point is the same, why not ban poisonous ingredients? It implies poisonous mushrooms also, but doesn't criminalize cooking.
Well, if I use AI, it's still considered I wrote the code, just with help. And I personally never saw the code nor had access to it. Also, whatever I implemented must be clean room implementation then. If it was that simple, then we would not have the copyright issue to begin with. LLM can't be an author nor can it be legally liable.
This can be true, but ultimately it's up to the target user group. Smartphone cameras are more than fine for the general consumer, and classic cameras have bulky size to accomodate the proper hardware for pros. The average consumer wants to both take photos at any given moment, and in parallel never carry bulky hardware for pro-level photos.
How can I prove that I have ownership over code I wrote myself, and that it isn't copyrighted somewhere in the world? How can anyone prove that code is written by a human or AI (if you don't commit obvious AI harness files and folders)?
Developers also "generate" code and are also "trained" on code they written as freelancers or employees for others which is potentially copyrighted. In that aspect just because it's written by hand, doesn't imply the writer has copyright on it.
Then why not say it's not allowed to upload code you don't have copyright to? This would make sense, nobody would question it and it would generally also cover AI-generated code.
Mentioning vibe coding just upgraded it into a social and moral topic, while the sole fact that AI generated code is no issue at all, just that there is not a general concensus in the world who holds the copyright to that code.
It's kinda like blanked banning cooking, because you can't cook without a knife, and knife can be used as a weapon.
What is "minimum necessary data"? Or does everyone define that for themselves?
US-based software does have hosting physically in EU, which makes it in the same legal domain, but US has the CLOUD Act, where US can force their companies, even if abroad, to pull data to US. So, being simply in the same legal domain or country does not make it sovereign. You actually need your own hardware and the full software stack where there is no foregin ownership to actually be sovereign.
And if you just scale up from individual persons to nations/blocks, whats the difference between "I will not use Google Drive, I will selfhost Nextcloud" and "EU will not use Google Drive, it will selfhost Nextcloud".
Me in this case is just not a person, but a country/political entity. EU is selfhosting instead of using US-provided hosting.
Please stop calling seflhosting "digital sovereignty". It's just a marketing buzzword, but basically there is nothing there except "I will host it myself".
It peaked right before cloud and streaming became a thing. Since then, we as consumers lost control of it, and the big tech is since then doing what it wants with it.
Oh, I better then go ahead and buy them at high prices before it turns out in 2-3 years that he was wrong.
Thanks and bye, not gonna waste my time and fall on your level.
Maybe they can protect themselves with a.. great firewall of USA?
Dude, you are racist. Learn to accept people of different opinion. Don't fuckin call me nazi when you would love to put people like me in a concentration camp and let the gas flow. Don't act you are better than me in any way. Fuck off nazi scum right back.
I assume then you must be from the USA, because your gender and religion argument is not really an issue in the rest of the world. People don't really mind and don't get triggered by this, since nobody is doing this with the intent to hurt anyone.
I speak from a local perspective from what I see and what I hear. I was waiting on a station for a tram, and a couple of shady dudes, clearly not locals, were constantly going up and down the station, looking at me, going around me and often behind me although there was more place in front of me where I can see them. I DO NOT WANT TO FEAR if they will attack me!
I was walking with a few friends throughout the center, when we noticed a group of them following us. We turn into a street, they turn into a street. We move faster, they move faster. We slow down, they slow down. When we finally stopped, turned around and looked at them, then they went on somewhere else.
I do feel fear with them around me. You can't deny that. You can't understand that unless you are in the same situation. It's easy for you to be "righteous" when you don't need to live in that way. Fear for yourself, for your friends, for your family.
And there is no fucking reason why I or anyone else should fear walking around at any time of day or night. How much crime was avoided, but the intent to do it was there? I can say I never fealt so in danger around locals. NEVER. And here we are, with people justifying why I should apparently live in fear because that's the right thing to do.
Imagine the failed democracy, where the elected representative says that what failed him was pursuing his own agenda, instead of the will of the people he is supposed to represent.
I agree. And I think the push for remigration is not because people inherently want them out, as much as we simply can't handle that influx of people properly, and we risk creating ghettos and parallel societies that can't live with the domestic society. Also, a lot of those people simply refuse to integrate and some said in interviews that they head we will just give them everything and they can live in our countries same as they did at their home, in terms of culture. This is a false narrative that was fed to people.
We need to set boundaries and enforce them, and the entire topic is created because we didn't have boundaries upfront and we are still not enforcing them as we should. We can set up strict integration requirements, and send back everyone who refuses or is unable to meet them. This is fair and would quickly filter out the bad apples as they would be first to refuse.
In the end, people want to know they are safe if they walk outside at night, and this was not the case in many places since 2015.
Don't be an uncivilized native, white, church going man, and learn to properly communicate online. You sound like an angry kid. I stated my reasons and am open to discussions and you barge here like a wild Tarzan banging your chest and throwing big words thinking it makes you smart and right.
And the reasoning "there is bad men everywhere" doesn't change the fact that on one side you have the majority who is fine and a few bad apples, and on the other side you have the bad apples as the default. Ask in Afganistan should women have rights and you will quickly find it's not a few bad apples, its their way of life. And no, we do not want that way of life in our, different society.
This doesn't mean they all need to go, but there should be very firm integration requirements, and if you don't want to assimilate and live by our common standards, you should leave. You can't come into someone elses home and expect the owner to live by the guests rules. It's common sense and our hospitality that we did show - is being abused.
I can. You have people of a world view that women are objects that are created soley to serve men, in any way they see fit. Those people migrate in societies where women are treated equal. The same migrants have in their world view that such women should be killed because of doing things they consider illegal in their world view, ignoring the fact that killing in the local society is unacceptable.
And now, think as a father of a daughter who sees more and more men migrating into your society who think your daughter should be killed for the way she dressed, and will not restrain from killing her if they decide to do so in their own world view.
Find a way to tell me we should accept those immigrants, with directly opposing world views to ours, which think what we consider a crime is moral and necessary, into our society and accomodate for their needs. Accept them. Knowing very well we would probably be killed for being us in their own country.
You may be referring to the immigrations in the US, but having a problem with a Latino and having a problem with a jihadi man is not the same.