I mean, they kind of have to, when they are the ones falling under that very same definition, right?

Along with MAGA supporters who buy pizzas and leave threatening messages for judges and politicians who rule against or oppose Trump after he makes a social media post decrying them. Senator Elissa Slotkin talked about all the death threats she and her family received when the president was calling her treasonous and saying she along with the five others who were reminding military and intelligence members of their oath to the Constitution.

That's because we stopped calling others out for shameful, disrespectful or unethical behavior as a rule. So there is less or nothing to be ashamed about anymore.

Worse, the rule became to reverse the victim and offender,[0] and belittle those calling out the behaviour as "woke" or "suppressing free speech".

This is incredibly funny, I’m impressed. The FAQ of the No-AI Editor is hilarious:

Q: I typed "make website" and nothing happened? A: That is correct. You have to write the HTML tags. <div> by <div>.

Q: How do I center a div without the Agent? A: Nobody knows. This knowledge was lost during the Great Training Data Purge of 2029.

that last one hits hard because really, I don't even know today IRL

That page crashes Safari for me on iOS.

Yeah, that page is horrendous and looks super sketchy. It looks like a very professional fishing attempt to get unsuspecting developers to download malware.

They have a lot of obviously fake quotes from non-existent people at positions that don’t even mention what company it is. The pictures are misgendered and even contain pictures of kids.

Feels like the whole page is AI generated.

They have a CLA that assigns copyright to them: https://github.com/rustfs/rustfs/blob/5b0a3a07645364d998e3f5...

So, arguably worse than MinIO.

The _only_ reason to require a CLA is because you expect to change the license in the future. RustFS has rug-pull written all over it.

Or to offer it under a commercial licence in parallel.

While that is the most common use case for CLAs, it is normally done by contributors granting a very permissive, but not exclusive, license to a legal entity like a company or foundation, in addition to the public license granted to everyone.

This is not that. This is not even a license. They want a full transfer of intellectual property ownership. Sure that enables them to use it in a commercial product, but it also enables them to sue if contributors contribute similarly to other projects. Obviously that would create a shit storm, and there is an exception with the public license, but riddle me this: can you legally make similar contributions to multiple projects that have this type of CLA?

Let us take a step back and instead look where such terms are more common: employment contracts.

That doesn't require full copyright assignment, though, right?

Obviously this is not the only reason - even the Free Software Foundation require IP assignment via a CLA.

Whether you can or will sign one is a different matter (I will not).

How would you run a project like this? People come and go. People do a one-time contribution and then you never hear from them again. People work on a project for years and then just go silent. Honestly, credit where credit is due, but how is a project like this supposed to manage this?

You can have CLA without assigning copyright to the project.

You don't need assignment to the project if you are not planning to change project's license.

You do need assignment to the project if you need to ever rugpull the community and close the code

You could pick a license and not plan to relicense later. Like Linux.

What do you mean by 'manage?' In your mind, what are you planning to do in the future that you need my full copyright as a change owner?

Without a valid CLA and a strong core team, you often end up with fragmentation or legal deadlock. Even the ASF isn't a silver bullet—projects without strong leadership die there all the time. The CLA exists to prevent that friction.

Then it's not the CLA that ensures project survivability. It's the strong core team you mentioned.

MinIO had a de facto CLA. MinIO required contributors to license their code to the project maintainers (only) under Apache 2. Not as bad as copyright assignment, but still asymmetric (they can relicense for commercial use, but you only get AGPL). https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQU...

That's so weird. Your contribution is a derived work based on AGPL, so it must be AGPL...

The number of weird incompetent things the Minio people have done is surprisingly high.

Djot is another interesting alternative that tries to make Markdown more parsable and coherent: https://github.com/jgm/djot#rationale

I hadn't heard of that before but it looks like it solves a lot of my complaints about markdown.

I hope it gains more momentum.

Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to have a formal spec.

You’re absolutely correct!

Like a cease and desist letter, but inverted. Persist and insist, perhaps?

I don’t quite get what Zed’s emulation of :e has to do with being a modal editor. It’s a completely different editor so of course the interface to interact with files is going to be different, but in my experience Zed’s implementation of modality when it comes to its Vim mode is extremely good. Even better than the already excellent NeoVintageous for Sublime Text.

Fair point. I guess the problem is with their (Neo)Vim keybindings, not so much with the modal-editing part. I included it as vim is the most popular modal editor and its keybindings are what are lacking.

Are there any modal editors that are not file-based? Maybe it would be better to say this is a problem with its file-based editor emulation?