A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
What will probably happen is that the unit tests will go closed source, which sucks because it makes verifying things harder for non maintainers.
With unit tests people can burn down a forest and use billion tokens to recreate same FOSS project that gives green on all unit tests, and if unit tests are enough to cover things, it will be "good enough" replica.
It's a convoluted set up, but the pun is excellent.
AI think, therefore AI am.
Technically AI code is not copyrightable, so all AI slop software is technically public domain.
so now its not only moral but also legal to pirate microslop software
but who wants to use microslop software?
Just replace with microslop!
Tell that to the current maintainers of chardet: https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327
Spoiler: They've heard it, they don't care
Damn, that whole thread is a train wreck. The likes and dislikes show a clear divide. I also can't believe so many people hate LGPL so much, calling it a cancer.
Way too many computer touchers seem to have silently agreed with Steve Ballmer all along.
yhea, they can say that, the same way I'm allowed to lie
They've heard it, they don't care
EXACTLY how I feel about every Taylor Swift song except Trouble.
I mean, that's not my music, but I can still recognize the empire she built on the skills that she possesses. She seems to be a fine person as well, where anyone vibe coding something and claiming it as their IP is a joke.
I can still recognize the empire she built on the skills that she possesses
Counterpoint: those skills have MUCH more to do with marketing than creative talent or proficiency.
She seems to be a fine person as well,
Nah, she's a billionaire. You can't become and REMAIN that ludicrously wealthy and still be a good person.
Either way, she did it. I think she's far better at business than singing.
Being good at music shouldn't make you a billionaire.
United States: $49 – $499
Europe (UK, France, Germany): €69 – €499
Southeast Asia (Singapore, Philippines): SGD $108 – $388
Australia: AUD $79 – $379
That's the ticket. Before taxes (at least in the US), and before Ticketmaster and friends bent you over. But wait, there's more!
You can buy VIP packages. Because having money makes you very important.
It’s Been A Long Time $199 VIP merch, early entry
Karma Is My Boyfriend $399 Premium seats, VIP lanyard, photo booth access
You Belong With Me $699 Exclusive merch + lower level seating
All Too Well $899 Front floor seats + signed item (limited)
The Lover Experience $1,200 VIP entrance + collectible signed photo
And all of that is if you even manage to buy a ticket, because scalpers are ripping you off as well.
Nosebleeds $200 – $450
Mid-level seating $500 – $1,200
Floor seats (front) $1,500 – $5,000+
VIP Pit Areas $3,000 – $15,000
...
The empire she's built was paid by dads taking their daughter to a concert and young people who love her. She's robbing them and telling them "it's because of the fireworks" or whatever bullshit.
That's how everyone makes money. They produce a good or service and get paid accordingly.
I go to a decent number of concerts and unfortunately have to deal with Ticketmaster and live Nation. Between the Monopoly and scalpers, it is a joke how ticket prices are.
Selling VIP tickets for extra meet and greet access, or whatever is just another product. Almost every large performer I've gone to see had had some kind of vip offering. Nobody has to buy these things, but if you really like it and can afford it, you do.
The artist does not make extra money off of inflated scalped tickets. It's dumb that it happens, but Swift was one of the few people that did push back against Ticketmaster for allowing the practice.
Yes, she built an empire off of her fandom, that's how that works.
That's how everyone makes money. They produce a good or service and get paid accordingly.
That is quite a load-bearing use of "accordingly". You're allowed your opinions, but don't make it seem the relationship between work and money is straightforward and neutral. You're allowed to believe that a streetsweeper or farmer should make less money than Taylor Swift but that is very much not an obvious thing that everyone agrees on.
Accordingly was maybe not the best word, but she provides a service people will pay for.
I think teachers should make more, but they don't generate revenue to pay them more. I think the government should step up and use taxes or some other funds to raise that floor. It's the same with pro athletes. They generate billions and make millions. Should they not get a good chunk of the money that they themselves generated?
There are lots of jobs that maybe ethically or morally should be paid higher than entertainers based on the value added, but as you mentioned is not just straightforward. My argument is Swift has made a lot because she has earned it with her work. Whatever her motive are, whether the live for music or money is irrelevant. She makes something people will pay for, and they do.
Artists used to do that because they loved music, and I bet there are still some left. I work for money and I get paid, but that doesn't mean I make everything a transaction.
I don't know why people think AI changes shit...
If you copy/pasted the code is it the same?
If you manually retyped the code is that different?
What if someone is reading it aloud and you type it?
How many errors need to happen during transposition that you then fix to call it a new code.
People just want to find the laziest way to rip shit off, and right now that's AI doing it and claiming ignorance that it's not a blatant copy.
Since the late 70sc “clean-room” reverse engineering involves have an “engineer” (coder) read the source code, and write a neutral, plain English specification of what that software does, feature by feature; function by function.
Then, pass that off to another engineer who never sees the original code, and writes their own implementation that matches the specs.
This is how the IBM PC’s bios was cloned and the compatible market was born.
AI changes shit because:
That "clean room" thing sounds like a lawyering loophole to me.
i gotta watch halt and catch fire again
The whole point of the Ship of Theseus is that you never change the ship. You just change one part at a time until every part has been replaced. Is it still the same ship?
That's what OOP was referencing, but it's a kind of loose reference. I guess they're assuming it's a different ship?
There's not supposed to be a solid answer. You're just supposed to think about it.
Yeah, but the comparison translates poorly to software, since there is no way to "take" a whole ship, only to copy it. Whether you copy it directly or rewrite it, the material is the same, because you have the same information in the end. It would be closer to take the ship apart and rebuild it exactly the same using the same planks. Now, if you ask the AI to re-write a software in a different language, or using different patterns, that would be something else. If it writes the open-source project exactly the same, byte by byte without the license, then it's simply breaking the terms.
Yeah, I wasn't saying that the analogy was apt. Just explaining the (attempted) reference
