It seems to me that this is just an issue of diff features. Git can extended to show semantic diff of binary files and it doesn't technically need a completely new VCS.
As git became the most popular VCS right now and it continues to do so for foreseeable future, I don't think incompatibility with git is a good design choice.
If anyone ever wonder why they don't see productivity improvement, they really need to read Mythical Man-Month.
Garage Duo can out-compete corporate because there is less overhead. But Garage Duo can't possibly output the sheer amount of work matching with corporate.
In my view the reasons why LLMs may be less effective in a corporate environment is quite different from the human factors in mythical man month.
I think that the reason LLMs don't work as well in a corporate environment with large codebases and complex business logic, but do work well in greenfield projects, is linked to the amount of context the agents can maintain.
Many types of corporate overhead can be reduced using an LLM. Especially following "well meant but inefficient" process around JIRA tickets, testing evidence, code review, documentation etc.
I've found that something very similar to those "inefficient" processes works incredibly well when applied to LLMs. All of those processes are designed to allow for seamless handoff to different people who may not be familiar with the project or code which is exactly what an LLM behaves like when you clear its context.
There have been methods to reduce overhead available over the history of our industry. Unfortunately almost all the times it involves using productive tools that would in some way reduce the head counts required to do large projects.
The way this works is you eventually have to work with languages like Lisp, Perl, Prolog, and then some one comes up with a theory that programming must be optimised for the mostly beginners and power tooling must be avoided. Now you are forced to use verbose languages, writing, maintaining and troubleshooting take a lot of people.
The thing is this time around, we have a way to make code by asking an AI tool questions. So you get the same effect but now with languages like JS and Python.
Depends on what task you're doing, and to a certain extent how you prefer to do it. For example sure there's plenty of ways to tag/rename media files, but I've yet to find something that matches the power of Mp3tag in a GUI under linux.
I just did, have you actually tried using them side-by-side? It's hard for me to look favorably on kid3. I actually gave myself 5-10m to try and learn kid3 and a lot of what seems like obvious ways to accomplish a task like 'rename these files using their tags' didn't do anything. I even broke out the manual which didn't help/explain if there was a different mindset I need to adopt. I could manage to manually edit tags/rename file by file, but that seems like table stakes for anything that handles media files (even a file manager) let alone an application that is meant to be a specialist in that area, and we're not into any advanced functionality yet.
More generally though it's not about one specific type of tool, it's that windows and linux have been different ecosystems for decades and that has encouraged different strengths and weaknesses. To catch up would mean a lot of effort even if you're just aiming to be equivalent, or use projects like WINE to blur the lines and use the win32 tool as though the specific platform doesn't matter so much.
I get that you wanted to make a general point. In case you're still curious about this specific case:
It's been a long time since I last used Mp3tag, so I tried the latest Mp3tag in WINE (seems to work nicely) for comparison. I think the basic operations (editing tags) actually do work similarly: in both you select file(s), edit the tag you want to in the GUI and changes get applied to any selected file(s) when you press save.
Renaming filenames based on tags also works according to that principle in kid3, you select the files you want to change (rename) and then use the `Format (arrow pointing from tag fields to filename field)` to specify what the filename pattern should look like and then use the `Tag 1` or `Tag 2` button to fill the placeholders from the (e.g.) ID3v1/ID3v2 tag, and click save to apply the changes.
In Mp3tag you'd also highlight the files, but unlike other tag editing operations you use the `convert->tag to filename` menu item/button, which pops up a wizard asking for the pattern and confirmation.
I'm guessing coming from Mp3tag you tried to use kid3's `Tools->Apply filename format` option, which I believe ensures the filename doesn't include special characters by doing string replacements (these are configured in the settings under `Files->Filname format`). I was wondering if that was perhaps confusingly named, so I had a look in Mp3tag to see what this functionality was called there, but I couldn't find it. I'm sure it's possible somehow, but it probably involves scripting [1].
I noticed that Mp3tag seems to be able to automatically fetch album art whereas in kid3 you need to get the image yourself. I suspect more advanced functionality (scripting etc) will work differently in the two tools.
Well, not having Proton definitely didn't work to grow gaming on Linux.
Maybe Valve can play the reverse switcheroo out of Microsoft's playbook and, once enough people are on Linux, force the developers' hand by not supporting Proton anymore.
For making music as much as I love the free audio ecosystem there's some very unique audio plugins with specific sounds that will never be ported. Thankfully bridging with wine works fairly well nowadays.
I use some cool ham radio software, a couple SDR applications, and a lithophane generator for my 3d printer. It all works great, if you have a cool utility or piece of software, why wouldn't you want to?
The US hasn't really won any war for the long term since WW2. It turns out it's hard to change people's opinion by bombing them. Equipment is good at destroying the other sides's factories, and making people afraid of you (though even that's usually done with on-the-ground police boots) but it can't actually make people agree with your side, and in fact, seems to usually have the opposite effect. They can only hold control temporarily as long as they apply massive military pressure. As soon as they let up the pressure, they lose.
It probably has something to do with the strict top-down control structure. It's a Linux vs Microsoft situation. Large organisations, regardless of type, cannot innovate.
The quote has nothing to do with a well regulated militia. It's about whether the technical ability for internet shutdowns has been built or not.
>A country’s ability to shut down the internet depends a lot on its infrastructure. In the US, for example, shutdowns would be hard to enforce. As we saw when discussions about a potential TikTok ban ramped up two years ago, the complex and multifaceted nature of our internet makes it very difficult to achieve. However, as we’ve seen with total nationwide shutdowns around the world, the ripple effects in all aspects of life are immense. (Remember the effects of just a small outage—CrowdStrike in 2024—which crippled 8.5 million computers and cancelled 2,200 flights in the US alone?)
>The more centralized the internet infrastructure, the easier it is to implement a shutdown. If a country has just one cellphone provider, or only two fiber optic cables connecting the nation to the rest of the world, shutting them down is easy.
Nukes and tanks weren't built for internet shutdowns, and it's a ridiculous idea that if the US government decided to do an internet shutdown that they would decide to use a nuke for that.
Hey bro! This is the real English bro! No way we can write like that bro! What? - and ;? The words like "furthermore" or "moreever"? All my homies nver use the words like that bro! Look at you. You're using newline! You're using ChatGPT, right bro?
Given the eloquently natural words in this post, I conclude you must be this thread's prompt engineer! Well done, my fellow Netizen. Reading your words was like smelling a rosebud in spring, just after the heavy snow fell.
Now, please, divulge your secret--your verbal nectar, if you wish--so that I too can flower in your tounge!
Flickr doesn't break down views, so, for all I know it could have been bots doing image recognition or a single guy in his bedroom clicking on certain pictures 100x a day.
But yeah.... "links shared on forums" was always my leading theory.
In some cases, I'm sure the thumbnails enticed extra clicks. But some of the pictures just had a bustier than average woman in the background or something. It's not clear to me that the thumbnails were enticing.
(99% of these people were my IRL friends as well, so I wasn't really trying to take salacious pictures....)
Also, his demanding of not using his work for AI training is nonsense. Because entire articles, this one included is published under a Creative Commons license.
Didn't he agree on that?
Mozilla must reject his further contribution because he stated he don't understand the term of Creative Commons license. His wish granted I guess.
Creative Commons License was created without any AI in mind.
And
> Licensees may copy, distribute, display, perform and make derivative works and remixes based on it only if they GIVE THE AUTHOR or licensor THE CREDITS
This is the most fundamentally important question of AI-related law, and nobody knows the answer as it hasn't been tested by any court AFAIK (at least not in the US).
We already know the tribunal will take AI's side, not because of any justice or ethical reason but because of capitalism. They will interpret the law as saying whatever they want the law to say.
If one takes another's work, cuts it up and makes collages out of it, however multidimensional, what is the piece size threshold that makes the collage non-derivative?
The Japanese copyright law clearly stated decades ago and recent US court favors Anthropic on this regard.
Copyright isn't granted on mere information or thought.
If you take somebody's copyrighted writing, analyze it and publish information such as how many words or sentence in it or other information about that copyrighted work, that's not a derivative works of original copyrighted work.
So, this contributor revealed he doesn't understand the license his work is published under. As such, Mozilla must refuse his contribution because he don't understand the idea behind Creative Commons license. His wish granted I guess.
You can rescind a license. If you own a property, it is yours. Even if you licensed it to someone, you own it and you can kick someone off. They can later address you for a breach of license, but it's still your property. You own it.
If mozilla wants to tell him that his work was valuable and therefore has grounds to sue him for rescinding the license, they will have a lot of difficulty proving that after their sumobot summarily deleted years of it for no good reason at a whim.
Good for him. He should probably consider suing them for destruction of his work.
Once your work is published under Creative Commons license, it is irreversible. No matter you have a copyright or not. You can't undo it the fact at one point you published your work in one of Creative Commons license(there are multiple incompatible Creative Commons licenses so it's bit complicated).
You can make updated version of your work to non-CC, but the version you published under CC is CC.
I would be curious if that is how Japanese courts would view it. They may not consider that a valid way. Or they might. But different jurisdictions vary.
You need to think hard and understand that it is irreversible before you publish your content under certain licenses.
My problem with this type of gate keeping is that machine learning does open up translations that are accurate to the masses. It is quaint having a real human do your translations though. Kind of like having a real human drive your car or do your housework. Not everyone can afford that luxury. But, on the other hand, having a singular organization own the training data and the model and not publishing the model itself is where the gatekeeping continues.
There are some discussion if the whole concept of "license" fits under Japanese law. I think it's understood as "a contract to allow the usage of otherwise restricted work by copyright etc under conditions"
But I'm not a lawyer so I don't know and in real business, they casually use the word "license" in Japan. But in my opinion, everything is contract under Japanese law.
Yeah - I know in US law some terms are simply unenforceable and void. Much of the FOSS movement is designed around US contract law. There are issues with some US licenses being enforceable under other legal regimes - I was chatting a decade or so ago with a Russian who understood the...GPL(? I don't remember exactly) to be invalid in Russia and so it had to be bundled in some fashion to be usable.
Or to put another way, a license (a contract) is a tuple (terms, jurisdiction), and the juridical evaluation process will take both into account.
> Once your work is published under Creative Commons license, it is irreversible.
I am not sure how it is under Japanese law, but in some countries a creator cannot be stripped of his rights by agreeing to a license. Even without that there is often a way to rescind any gift given in good faith if the receipients behavior warrants it.
In case of Japanese copyright law, that is 著作人格権(moral rights). A right that protect his work isn't used in a way the author don't want it.
It includes right to be not published(like a personal letter intended to be secret), attribution, right to be identical preservation(modifying in a way author don't intended, like adding extra arm to 3-arms monster)
You see, these rights are covered in Creative Commons, by agreeing and publishing his work under Creative Commons, the author explicitly promised he won't use these exclusive rights against the users.
If he didn't agree on the spirit of Creative Commons, why did he contributed Mozilla in CC license for 20 years? Did he intended to taint free software by incompatible non-free work?
This is exactly what happens if you ignore the free software definition explained by RMS.
I don't think it's at all clear that some foss licenses (MIT for instance) are irrevocable. Not in the US, and certainly not in any possible relevant country... It's not clear that they are revocable either. As I understand the law it at least in part rests on the question of whether there was consideration in exchange for the license, which might even make it a case by case analysis.
CC licenses (and some other foss licenses, e.g. Apache 2.0) are explicitly irrevocable... which is probably enough for US law though I still wonder to some degree if there isn't some country that would take issue with that term... especially a country which recognizes "Moral rights".
Some other FOSS licenses (GPL for instance) contain explicit terms allowing revocation under certain circumstances (but otherwise claim to be irrevocable).
Whether the license is revokable or not is irrelevant when the action isn't permitted by the license anyway.
In particular, the primary purpose of AI as we know it is to strip off attribution, which is explicitly forbidden by basically every license in existence.
True, license is probably irrelevant here because they aren't even intending to comply with the terms of it.
To nitpick "explicitly forbidden" isn't quite right. Licenses basically only grant more permissions, they can't remove them. It's explicitly excluded from the rights granted by the license, but it's not explicitly forbidden because it is the law that might or might not forbid the activity, not the license.
As git became the most popular VCS right now and it continues to do so for foreseeable future, I don't think incompatibility with git is a good design choice.