Notices by shamar@qoto.org

Interesting library @rysiek

Have you considered a browser plugin?

@nlnet

Let's suppose you have to teach C to 7yo kids.

Where do you start from?

How do you setup their playground?

(please, don't question the goal in this thread... let's focus on solutions)

@hipsterelectron

#Debian classify the kind of #AI systems that the #OSI's #OSAID defines as #opensource, as #ToxicCandy: https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy/-/blob/master/ML-Policy.rst

Without training data you cannot ecercise the freedom to study a #ML system and your ability to modify it is severely limited to fine tuning.

Which is like to say that windows is open source because you can tweak the registry.

For these reasons some open source developers are already moving beyond OSI: https://opensourcedeclaration.org

You are welcome to join!

It's not just matter of securing the #OSD, but to update it with a truly open process, with all developers, artists, musicians, data scientists... who contribute their time and valuable skills to open source: https://opensourcedefinition.org/wip/

@mawhrin @tante @biocrusoe

@aral

No vertical screen?

Do you rotate a screen while coding or you actually feel better with an horizontal setup?

@irenes

I think @rms did a huge error basing what was a hacker¹ movement on the value of freedom alone.

#Freedom (like #Communion) is a totalizant value, a value that can blind people from other important values, so much that it's the foundational value of #Capitalism (much like what #Communion was for #Comunism).

As we can all see that #FreeSoftware lost its political goals, being used much more to reduce human freedom than to increase it (#Google and #Facebook would not exists without exploiting huge amount of developers' work donated as Free Software, much like #GitHub #Copilot / #CopyALot), we should really move to something different.

Years ago I wrote the #HackingLicense ² to this aim, a (network) #copyleft license (and a shrink-wrap contract) that has been used successfully in a couple of projects.

It doesn't forbid commercial use of the covered works and even share the copyright with the users that comply with the license itself, BUT contractually impose a complete reciprocity, as any work that benefit in any way from the covered work must be distributed in the same way.

IOW, if you use my work under the Hacking License, I can use and distribute your work under the same terms. Even if it's a LLM, or a software including its output.

I'm not sure the Hacking License is the best tool to get back freedom, communion and #Curiosity, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

¹ http://www.tesio.it/2020/09/03/not_all_hackers_are_americans.html
² http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt

@krans @glyph @eb

@drewdevault

AFAIK any modification to LGPLv3 code must be distributed under LGPLv3.

The difference with GPL is that you can include or link an unmodified LGPL work into a proprietary software and distribute the whole with a different license.

But if you modify the LGPL work itself and redistribute it (in binary or source form) you must use the LGPL license as it would obviously be a derivative work.

Even wikipedia confirms this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#Differences_from_the_GPL

Thus you should clarify the related paragraphs: using LGPL for the distribution of derivative works is not a suggestion but a requirement of the license.

Also, when I talked with a lawyer about a derivative work of a BSD software he explained me that I could distribute my modified version under AGPLv3 because I had introduced and modified several parts and my modification was under GPLv3 so the work as a whole was GPLv3, BUT I could not alter the copyright statements in the files I was copying verbatim from the original BSD project.

So my suggestion is to talk with a lawyer specialized in sofyware copyright about Redict before distributing Redis code under a different license.

@freemo

Uhm.. no: to act ethically you (reasonably) need to study ethics.

Do not confuse ethics and morality.

Studing ethics is not enouth to be ethical, sure, but it is required.

Being good is different from being ethical, for example. Adherence to a certain form of morality is not being ethical. But ethics is a deep branch of phylosophy and for sure I'm not qualified to teach it (over mastodon :-D)

Anyway, good night!

@toiletpaper @scottsantens

@freemo

Uhm... no: only van Gogh was an artist.

Meucci was a inventor (invented the phone) and Olivetti was a visionary enterpreneur (his company invented the first programmabke desktop computer, then illegally copied by HP).

The market was unable to understand the utility provided, because it simply does not work as in the classical economy models.

There is an annoying feature of the market called information asymmetry that makes often impossible to understand (and thus pay for) what provide value. It's a slightly advanced topic in microeconomics (that in fact, I studied at the University, in the course of Political Science, decades ago).

But while I'm trying to provide you with a different perspective (and actually a well informed one on the topic) it seems that you feel insulted.

So there is no need to continue this convesation: keep thinking that I confirmed your opinion if it make you feel better than understanding what I actually wrote..

Good bye!

@toiletpaper @scottsantens

@freemo

(not to consider the passage on ethics.. do you really think that if there are more ethical people than the market demand for, such people should stop being ethical? :-D

And yes, to be really ethical you need to study a lot! It's a very rich field of human knowledge, with thousands years of work!)

@toiletpaper @scottsantens

really @freemo you are just showing that you know nothing about art (or its history).

The ability of the market to pay for value is well shown in the cases of van Gogh, Meucci, Olivetti and so on...

The market is not rational.

@toiletpaper @scottsantens

@freemo

Well, our society needs people who can reason about ethics, for example. We need people who knows history. We need people who can create poetry and art. But capitalist market fear ethics, as it would conflict with profit maximization. It also fears history because it shows that there have been plenty of alternatives to capitalist market. As for poetry and art in general, the greatest artists tend to be poor and misunderstood, and in no way create their masterpiece for the market (that tends to exploit them after their death).

The value of the greatest artists is often really understood decades after their death. So being able to provide value to the society is pretty different from being əble to make society understand and recognise such value.

And the converse is also true: the market pays for all sort of non-sense, that provide no value to the society, From drugs to gamers.

So pursuing only marketable skills as a condition to survival is, again, a way to produce a reserve army if labour to keep wage low.

"Educating the populace" is a better alternative than #UBI if (and only if) the people can earn a living by studying any human field of knowledge. And this does not include weed smoking or any of the strawman you picked, but might include several different fields with very low market demand, such as, say, theorethical phylosophy, history of music, or artic biology or programming in #Oberon or #HolyC.

This because the market do not know what will be valuable for the society.

@scottsantens

@freemo

Uhm... if you actually meant that people studying whatever they decide to study to any degree should earn a decent income that make them independent, then I agree that this is a better alternative to #UBI.

But note: the income should be granted to anyone studying whatever they are interested into, not to people studying "what the market need".

If that's what you meant, I'm sorry for misunderstanding your words (but I also suggest you to be more clear next time: "job training" is a very specific kind education, designed to only teach people how to perform a specific job, not for example how to run a company that could compete in the market or create innovative technologies).

Yet the "who pays?" issue persist: you know that such "Universal Culture & Income" would have a huge economical cost: how do you think it could be payed through taxation?

@scottsantens

come on @freemo, turning "mandatory job training or mental health therapy" into "educating the populace" is a very poor attempt at changing your argument.

Nobody can be againg universal education, but you want to condition people survaival to job training, which is way less than education.

Or maybe I misunderstood your words: did you mean that anyone pursuing higher education in any possible field should be financially supported by the collectivity?

It would be great to see univerisities full of poor people studying history, phylosophy, music, math and so on, not only for free but with a decent income.

I totally agree that educating the populace in such way would benefit society in many way, maybe even economically, in the long run.

But if you just meant to condition people survival on "job training", you are really proposing to collectivize the cost of upgrading the reserve army of labour so that, the employers could keep the wage as low as possible.

@scottsantens

@freemo

Another way to describe this depiction of "welfare" is "we should all pay with our taxes to keep the reserve army of labour up to date, so that the employers can keep all wages as low as possible".

In fact, I would be fine with that IFF taxes would be proportional to one's income percentile: you are in the first income percentile (the poorest percentile), you pay 1% of your income in taxes; you are in the last income percentile, you pay 99% of your income in taxes.

In this way, the richest would pay for the upgrade of the reserve army of labour they need.

Anyway, the real problem with #UBI is that, everything else unchanged, it would be completely cancelled by inflation. With a caveat: when the UBI becomes the new zero, governments would be able to blackmail people depending on it.

Incidentally, this is also the obvious reason why many USA billionaires say they want UBI.

@scottsantens

@freemo

... and wise faries vigilate over them ...

🤣

come on Freemo, do you really believes such fairy tales?

@rayckeith