jrm4

I often get (perhaps reasonable) pushback for this, but the level to which CPAP equipment and supplies are gatekept by the industry is absurd. They're a fan tube, a mild heating element, and a sensor, and I'm nearly certain that it would be pretty difficult to harm yourself using one "wrong" -- especially as opposed to other medical items and drugs available OTC.

Also, yes, they're pretty cool. I don't love that I seem to need mine right now, but at least I know a guy. :)

At no point was the name a factor FOR YOU.

Your individual anecdote isn't data.

Why the worst outcome, though? "Sticky notes" are absolutely superior to third-party password managers in regard to "attackers."

Third-party password managers INCREASE your threat surface by orders of magnitude more than sticky notes, period. They change the number of holders of secrets from two to three, and that third one is now a juicy target. This is not theory, this has happened frequently.

Sticky notes (even better, a little private physical notebook) keep this limited to your physical location which is much easier to secure; the grandmas and grandpas I know who do this (I do similar) have a far better track record than anything else.

Not at all, even if the data collection is exactly the same. "Where the authority comes from" matters a lot, probably much more than the actual collection itself.

GOOD. Those cameras are absolutely an infringement on 5th Amendment rights.

Third-party password management as an isolated paid service (i.e. you don't get password management unless you pay specifically for the password management) is just a terribly bad idea all around.

Waiting for people to get this.

Weird take, but okay.

So, I like the hip-hop. Timbaland and RZA have embraced it; a number of other unknowns who are okay but not great haven't.

But nice try!

This is personal opinion anecdata, but I'm noticing the following.

It's only the mediocres that rail against AI; actual geniuses are like "hey, another tool. Cool."

Yes, me too.

And also, no one would USE IT. That's my point. It really is that simple.

I'm not primarily talking about "being offended." Jokes are fine in some contexts.

I'm saying that if you want people to take your software seriously, it needs a serious name. And that the GIMP people very very stupidly missed a huge opportunity by not doing that.

But what it DOES mean is -- okay, is it really worth it to KEEP it, or might you be able to get adoption, fans, traction, possibly more developers etc. etc. if you were to change it?

What is the strong motivation behind keeping the name and was it valid?

(No. The answer is no, it was not. There's no real good reason to keep it compared to the potential upsides.)

Thank you for this. I hate doing "offense aside" but.

Offense aside, you can still understand that this is a bad idea without bringing in the spectre of "is it offensive."

Like I'm saying elsewhere, what if it was called "Poop-edit" or similar? People would quite reasonably not believe it to be quality software, even if it was.

This is so painfully wrong it hurts; many a company has lived and/or died PURELY on name.

Respectfully, that's kind of a ridiculous "impression," easily refuted by many of us who have wanted to recommend GIMP to people.

And again, it's called "reading the room." Even if you don't care about it being "offensive" or a "slur," names still matter. Like, if the word "poop" was in the name of some otherwise good software.

Individual adults absolutely do, but "systems, PR, and institutions" DO NOT, and that is the important lesson that so many people here aggressively dodge.

I personally can download this software and use it on my computer.

Now, can I recommend it to my class? Through zero fault or opinion of my own, it still might be a very bad idea for me professionally.

Maybe I don't like how sensitive people are. TOO BAD, it doesn't matter in this context.

The clowns who refuse to rename GIMP keep missing a huge opportunity.

I hear that objection and it's a decent one, but that one just isn't as well known. Even as an American, I'm not thrilled that "offensive in America" matters more, but it does.

Again, it's about 20 years too late, but the rename thing is absolutely correct and I continue to be gobsmacked by the amount of people here who don't get this, especially as I've seen this place slowly move from actually being about "hacking" to being about "tech and business."

Perception matters; Y'all are so wild for this.

The entirety of the capitalist business world, unfortunately.

I'll continue to say it; this software does not get taken seriously in a useful way to lots of people until it changes the silly name.

And to summarize and perhaps avert other discussion; it's not so much about being "non-offensive" as it is simply about being professional.

Password protection by a for-profit (where the password protection is the product that you can't have unless you pay for it) is a fundamentally stupid and dangerous business model.

Waiting for everyone to understand this.

Nothing personal but I hate this take with a passion, and I literally think it's representative of the worst attitude in computing because it's the literal opposite of software SHOULD BE.

The whole entire point of computers in their best light is changeable software, the whole point should be "let people read how they want to."

Same thing, actually, I think.

I think that "the number of programs" you're suggesting is arbitrary. It's kind of like calling an operating system one thing, when it's a lot of things. You can "count" the things different ways.

The bigger takeaway is "making your own programming things."

Hahaha, but no.

It's like people forget the entire point, perhaps even definition of technology is "doing more with less."

The "brute force" of power and cycles is almost certainly the least important thing, perhaps even a hinderance.

Um, is the headline a joke?

Like, I thought the entire definition had to do with "the exact same thing twice."

Canvas shouldn't exist in its current form, and neither should have Blackboard.

It's always been as stupid as requiring that your chalkboard, chalk, chairs, bluebooks, pens, paper, gradebook etc etc all come from the same company.

I, for one, am very much looking forward to my IT Gov council meeting tomorrow.

Probably not wrong, and I mean, lots of economics words there (ah, my college major) but I personally just think that the path forward here is more practical and boring.

Gotta sue people and companies. Gotta get governments to do more regulation. I know this place is kind of allergic to that, but hey.

Yes. And the reason for all of this is the same as it's always been, and requires literally no technical knowledge to understand.

There is essentially zero accountability for harm.

There is no button on your toaster that blows up the toaster.

But there's a link in your email. And that's a button.

And no one has figured out how to punish Microsoft or Apple or Google for allowing that to continue, though we do this just fine elsewhere.

Someone or something has to be punished, regulated or otherwise hurt for anything to change here.

Sir, this is just one piece of software.

I find it weird that this is the top voted comment.

As in, this comment is explaining exactly why the laws are useful.

It's great in its simplicity. In a way, it's kind of a sneaky way to make a wholesome point.

I mean, the title really really implies something potentially dark. But it's just solid, simple stuff through and though.

For me it really hits home that ideas don't have to be new or fresh or amazing to be important. We just need reminders of like, kindergarten ethics.

I get why people make gut statements like this, and to me something does feel different about AI.

But I realize I have not seen any criticisms of AI generated music that are meaningfully different from criticisms I've heard of other advances/changes in music technology, whether performance or recording.

Sampling, scratching, drum machines, autotune, electric guitars even.