The first gimmick portfolio I’ve been genuinely impressed by. Beautiful, authentic and actually usable. The scanlines effect is chique, sound-effects on-point, and it is internally consistent in a way most of these sorts of portfolios aren’t. Very cute! :D
Boy i wish that principle held up in real medicine and other parts of life; "rep and skills" may in some ways equal power, but that false equivalency is how problematic behavior is excused in unfit individuals.
The new CEO’s comments on AI, followed by this… yea, Mozilla’s absolutely captured in the same hype-train as the rest of the industry. Cheers to another few years of woefully incompetent management of the only good browser we have.
That’s exactly the reason the research and development funded by government grants is rarely done in the private sector: It isn’t immediately profitable, and we don’t know for sure if it ever will. It’s important to put man-hours behind even theories that will seemingly never be useful (“trash”), both because it is impossible to know for sure, and because that is the underpinning of science.
Exploration for exploration’s sake, knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Not everything learned by the human race needs to be immediately useful; it all contributes to a vast tapestry.
Not to mention that if we focus solely on profitability and utility, we do bad science: Why do you think we have a reproduction crisis? Because reproducing experiments isn’t sexy nor profitable, so no one is incentivized to do it.
> Any modified versions, derivative works, or software that incorporates any portion of this Software must be released under this same license (HOPL) or a compatible license that maintains equivalent or stronger human-only restrictions.
That’s not what copyleft means, that’s just a share-alike provision. A copyleft provision would require you to share the source-code, which would be beautiful, but it looks like the author misunderstood…
(Despite all the valid critique being offered ITT, I applaud the author for trying. The underlying viewpoint is valid and deserves some form of representation at law.)
> A copyleft provision would require you to share the source-code, which would be beautiful, but it looks like the author misunderstood…
This license doesn't require the original author to provide source code in the first place. But then, neither does MIT, AFAICT.
But also AFAICT, this is not even a conforming open-source license, and the author's goals are incompatible.
> ...by natural human persons exercising meaningful creative judgment and control, without the involvement of artificial intelligence systems, machine learning models, or autonomous agents at any point in the chain of use.
> Specifically prohibited uses include, but are not limited to: ...
From the OSI definition:
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Linux distros aren't going to package things like this because it would be a nightmare even for end users trying to run local models for personal use.
> I applaud the author for trying. The underlying viewpoint is valid
Is it valid? I’m not really convinced. I’m not particularly a fan of copyright to begin with, and this looks like yet another abuse of it. I consider myself a creative person, and I fundamentally do not believe it is ethical to try to prevent people from employing tools to manipulate the creative works one gives to them.
The HOPL wouldn't stop the end user from running an LLM, but it would prevent the LLM from incorporating information or code from a HOPL-licensed source. Do I have that right?
Unfortunately, sometimes our judges, juries, and officers are also biased or incorrect; pardons are useful when the delivery of justice was mistaken or excessive.
> pardons are useful when the delivery of justice was mistaken or excessive
If you look at a slew of the recent pardons, the beneficiaries had already pleaded guilty. In those cases, the pardons should be ineligible. I think the most a President could do - should be - give defendants the ability to appeal the case to a new judge or jury. It's wrong and should be corrected! Added it to my todo list
Unfortunately, very often the best thing to do is just let them have their way and walk away with a lot less of a punishment than would be the case should you dare to fight them.
Financially and personally, it's what they do to pressure you into submission. It happens from criminal cases all the way down to fucking family court. It's absurd and it's broken.
I truly believe that almost every single attorney should have to lose sleep at night over how their actions impact others.
Pardons only enable presidents to direct their goons to operate outside of the rule of law without repercussions.Having one individual with strong incentives to enable their team stay in power as much as possible retain the power is shocking.
Judges and juries are at least superficially removed from that sort of corrupt incentive system.
> Pardons only enable presidents to direct their goons to operate outside of the rule of law without repercussions.
It is clear that they don't only do that, as that has not been their principal (or even a common) use for most of the history of the pardon power.
It is equally clear, however, that they do allow that; the check on that, like on most discretionary Presidential powers, is the Congressional power of impeachment; obviously, that is not a meaningful constraint when the Congress and the President are aligned on abuses, but the entire point of having separately elected bodies is to make it less likely that things that the public would see as abuses are supported by both political branches simultaneously. (Obviously, the fact that one whole house of Congress and 1/3 of the other are elected at the same time as the President, and that the weighting of the electoral college for the President are a blend of the apportionment to the House and Senate makes those elections less independent than one might want, even before considering the way the electoral structure contributors to partisan duopoly, though.)
Shooting the messenger won't fix or prevent a code quality problem.
Edit: Let me explain why I am of this opinion. Of late my life is being made miserable by poor quality software. There seems to be an entire generation of programmers that are skipping the whole part of the design process where one explores the problem space a given piece of software is meant to fit into. In doing so, they are willfully ignoring how the user will experience their software.
This includes networking products that have no means of recovery when the cloud credentials are lost. When the owner of the product loses their credentials and no longer has access to the email address they originally signed up for, the only solution is a manual reset of every single device in the network. Have you every had to spend hours taking a ladder into a building to rip down a dozen access points that are paperweights because there's no way to recover from this?
Take LLMs. They're great at filling in reams of boilerplate code where the structure is generally the same as everything else. So much of the software industry is about building CRUD apps for your favourite corporation, and there's not a lot of thinking throughout the process. But what happens when you're building a complex application that involves careful performance optimization on many core CPUs and numerous race conditions with complex failure modes? Not so good. And the person driving the LLM isn't going to patch the security holes in the "vibe code" they submitted to the Linux kernel because they don't even know how it works.
Or LLMs that skip off the guard rails and feed desperate individuals information on how to kill themselves?
What about the Full Self Driving vehicles that drive at full speed into emergency vehicles parked on a road with lights flashing that the most naive of drivers would instinctively slow down for while approaching?
What about search engines that have prematurely deployed "AI" features that hallucinate search results for straightforward queries?
How about the world's largest e-commerce website that can't perform a simple keyword search for an attribute of a product (like the size of an SSD)? When I specify 8TB, I mean products that are 8TB, not 512GB!!!
How about CPUs that lose 10-20% of their touted performance gains at launch because of bugs that are "fixed" by software and microcode updates after launch?
What about the email service that blocks emails that are virtually identical to every other email sent to a mailing list because it wasn't delivered using TLS? Oh, but the spammers that have SPF + DKIM + ARC + whatever validation get to have their messages delivered because they have put an Unsubscribe link in the headers.
How about the online advertising platforms that push scams on the elderly with ads that are ephemeral to prevent anyone from sharing a link to what they just saw and report it?
So if I say there is a problem with a software developer being clueless about features they have implemented, it is a valid criticism that is based in facts about the way their software was designed and how it functions.
There are still people who value their reputation enough to put in the effort to explore the problem space and anticipate the user's needs to avoid issues like this, but I fear that they are going to be pushed out of the industry because they're not fast enough in the race to foist the "next big thing" onto an unsuspecting public.
We need simple, reliable, functional software that meets the needs of its users. And we're losing that.
It's a sad state of affairs that we have to deal with in 2025. We have truly entered the age of "Fuck you" software that ignores what it does to its users and actively harms them.
For tuned, I don't need the bug fixed, as I simply don't want it changing any kernel settings at all. Uninstalling it achieves the result that I want.
The rest of the rant is valid and the issues are virtually impossible to get fixed.
Please enlighten me: how does one file a bug against spam filtering on gmail.com or get rid of broken AI summaries on google.com that will garner an acknowledgement and get the underlying issue fixed?
reply