Anytime someone’s claim is the protection of children, you should apply a VERY heavy dose of scepticism and scrutiny.

Mirror’s Edge was a fine game, but it never matched up to it’s best OST song: Warning Call

I just had someone here accuse me of being part of an astroturfing campaign because I disagreed with them about FOSS licensing. At that point I just stop responding because there’s no use having an argument about whether my entire comment history is just a facade to cover for my secretly paid-for opinions about FOSS.

I think that the “post-truth” world that is blossoming in Right-wing political circles, where incorrect facts are hand-waved away as “differences of opinion”, is causing people elsewhere to react defensively and be very guarded against any actual differences of opinion, and some are overreacting and treating any difference of opinion as immediately suspect or even malicious.

This is just an extension of the larger issue of people not understanding how AI works, and trusting it too much.

AI is and has always been about exchanging accuracy for speed. It excels in cases where slow, methodical work is not given sufficient time already, because the accuracy is already low(er) as a result (e.g. overworked doctors examining CT scans).

But it should never be treated as the final word on something; it’s the first ~70%.

I’ve heard weird claims like the FSF and OSI don’t [have] a monopoly on the definition of what’s FS or OSS.

I’m part of that group. If OSI and FSF want to control the definition of something, they should make new and unique terms, not just attempt to take over a concept that predates both of them. (Interestingly, OSI’s website claims no one used “open source” to talk about software before 1998, and that’s patently not true; I remember seeing people use that in IRC channels back in the early 90s). If I came along tomorrow and said, “my org now controls the definition of ‘downloadable software’,” people would tell me to sod off. Even worse “Open Source” and “Free” are both terms with plain-English meanings (which most people naturally assume to be what people are calling “source available”, in OSS’s case). Trying to impose centralized control over a simple phrase isn’t really in line with the collaborative, community-led spirit of the FOSS community, imho

Call it OSI-Approved Zero-Restriction Licensing or something.

Any project… should compete on their own merit, rather than riding and exploiting the world’s preference for FOSS.

Funny, that’s how I feel about OSI stepping in to claim control of that term.

Just want to reiterate - it’s ok as long as it starts as such, instead of doing a bait and switch.

I agree with this for existing projects, absolutely.

I felt like I was going crazy sometimes with how often people in the FOSS community insist that nothing is wrong when large companies are massively profiting off of unpaid labor that is meant to help people, by turning it into part of their closed-source product, so it’s nice to see that well-known figures in the community are starting to wake up to this being a problem.

I think that non-commercial-use clauses are a good way forward for certain projects, and commercial licenses for others. I wish that the upstream contrib requirements had taken off, but clearly Capitalism and the FOSS mindset aren’t compatible, and capitalism is more widespread.

If you let corporations have something for free, they’ll find some way to ruin it.

*follows Musk on LinkedIn*

I know exactly how litigious Funimation is. I absolutely need a VPN. :D

To be fair, they have a very good knowledge of what apartheid states (like Israel) look and act like.

Recognizing that Israel has moved from the “regular” oppression and killing of their sub-citizen population into full-on genocide is something that much of the rest of the world seems to be having trouble with.

Where did he say he was smarter or wiser? I must have missed that quote.

Yeah, I can imagine the frustration of seeing people who don’t know anything about what happened during development blame you as a dev for something that may have been design decisions or budgetary or time constraints that you had no say in or control over.

“So sure, you can dislike parts of a game,” he concludes. “You can hate on a game entirely. But don’t fool yourself into thinking you know why it is the way it is (unless it’s somehow documented and verified), or how it got to be that way (good or bad).”

“Chances are, unless you’ve made a game yourself, you don’t know who made certain decisions; who did specific work; how many people were actually available to do that work; any time challenges faced; or how often you had to overcome technology itself (this one is HUGE).”

This is a totally fair take. He explicitly says it’s fine to not like the game, but just don’t try to pretend you know what happened on the back end to make it the way it was, because you’re probably gonna misplace blame.