meteokr

100% agree. Universal Basic Income feels inevitable as a solution. Better and better technology puts machines in place of human labor, with no guarantee that other jobs will come into existence to replace the ones lost. Is it not the ideal goal to have machines do all labor, leaving humans to do what they actually want without fear of homelessness and starvation.

It just kinda sucks right now because these systems don't exist to support this changing landscape.

Which is exactly the same as how there were no new jobs for horses created. Employment is not a right. You have to either adapt with the changing times, or become unemployed. I agree that it sucks.

Anyone know the status of the single player tarkov project? Been a while since I looked at it, and I'd like to bring it into the discussion when the parent company is threatening the community essentially.

Improvements in technology do not guarantee employment for tradespeople of current technology. A whole lot of horses became unemployed when cars became ubiquitous. I'd say the improvement of cars to society is worth the loss of employment to all those who maintained the horse's infrastructure. Like all those manufacturing jobs lost from the improvement in machines, professional creatives must adapt to the times, or seek other forms of work. No different than any other job in all of history.

By writing text on their platform, you consented to their free and unlimited use of your text. Terms of Service and EULA on practically all platforms has this boilerplate legal agreement. You DID consent. Facebook has access to a massive amount of text, same with Google. They don't need to bother stealing when so much is already in their databases.

Now if you never wrote any text published on any platform with that agreement, sure you could have an argument there.

I would argue they already have. Just as cars used to be slow, inefficient, and loud, compared to today. Overtime their will inevitably be improvements in how they run, but also improvements in dedicated hardware support. Timeline wise, we are enjoying the hot new Model T, knowing eventually we will get to have a modern Honda Civic.

I despise that the artwork generators are all based on theft.

Ownership of anything is difficult to define. The internet has accelerated this loosening of definition. If I pay a subscription to use my coffee pot, do I really own it? If I take a picture of the coffee pot, do I own the picture? If I pay a photographer to take a picture of the pot do I own the picture, do I own their time?

I don't intend on trying changing your opinion on theft, but its interesting to think about how ownership feels very different as time goes by.

Docker, e.g. containers, are actually a process isolation system similar but not exactly the same as a chroot if you are familiar with that. It's an isolation of resources, but not so hardware isolated like a full fat VM. For example, adding a GPU to a VM requires handing over the full PCIe hardware interface, with one interface per VM. Where as containers can just bind mount the device files in /dev and multiple containers can share the same GPU hardware. Containers aren't virtualizating anything, just isolating processes from each other in a standardized way.

Bash being on the same level as actually fake code is a pretty hot take to me. What are your opinions on Python, or Ruby, or any other interpreted language? You could very well use them as your login shell, just like Bash if you wanted. In your eyes, if Bash *isn't * a programming language at all, how do you describe a programming language? Languages that express code are just the same as languages that write stories, and whether you do it in German or Vietnamese makes no difference on what story you can write.

When you describe a language as constricted what do you mean? Bash can do anything Python or Rust can do, each of them is just specialized to being better at specific aspects for human convenience in writing code. There is no inherit limitation on what can be done by the language you use to express it.

Why doesn't it? The wiki of that case states that source code is protected under the 1st Amendment. So what's the problem?

Pseudo code is literally fake code. Scripting is an actual type of code. Scripted languages while not strictly defined, usually refers to languages you don't compile before running them. Bash is considered a scripting language because you don't ship a binary compiled executable, but rather ship a file that is human readable and converted into machine code when it is run. Scripting languages are compared to compiled languages, like C or Rust. Where the file you run is already compiled, and executed directly.

What do you mean by this?

i’m referring to the aspect of a scripting language being generally constricted.

Any Turing complete system, or this case language, can do anything any other one can, depending on the level of suffering you are willing to endure to make it happen. Anything JS can do, Rust can do. Anything Rust can do, Bash can do. The differences between languages is the assumptions they make, and performance characteristics as a result of those assumptions. Functionality is not practically different from one another, though some absolutely make it easier for humans to do.

Fork it, maintain it, and move on. RHEL was forked into Alma/Rocky when the original provider's goals, and their community's goals were not in alignment. So far, the forks have improved the ecosystem over all. Fork Nix/NixOS and build the community. Its no different than the Debian derivatives like Mint or Ubuntu.