subscribed

>a negative outcome that I will inflict

So if you're a developer of OSS and released something that _already has inflicted_ a measurable negative outcome for me -- that's okay.

But if I in response say "I don't like, I'm going to fork and use that software without that feature" -- that's a threat to the dev?

I'd say it's very much double standards, especially since in that case the negative action in the original software has already happened and is already negatively impacting the people considering the fork.

And you're saying that them, by wanting to cease it, are the bad guys.

How is "_I really like your software but I the way X is solved bothers me, so I'm going to modify it thanks to your prior permission_" a threat?

"a competing product", perhaps for these pissed with the deb's human skills or those who want to use it in the unique environment he refuses them to adapt them to, contrary to his own licence?

No, seriously, intimidation? "Your position is untenable for us, we'll find another way forward" is a "let's agree to disagree", not more.

Are you representing the project?

Where did you get your public relations skills? In the school for ants?

Why don't you just ask someone who understands the _whole_ of the original issue instead of _mathematically proving_ we're just stupid?

If you're talking for HA - you guys are undoing _a lot_ of goodwill under this one post and it's interesting you either don't see it or don't care.

Ouch, what a painful read.

I avoided HA due to some technical issues published and the further development, but that quote absolutely cemented the decision in me:

> It made me decide to request for complete removal. > I suggest you honor that request and sit on your wounds.

What a.... colourful persona! I wonder if he was alluding to the potential and baseless C&D request or his opinion that one person's wish revokes MIT licence just because.

But..... That's quite painful to read.

It's really not so hard to either install 1Password afresh and check, or to check the documentation.

I would give them the benefit of the doubt but it's pretty clear from the initial response on github that privacy or security decisions of users do not matter much.

You should fix your fabrication in the 1st response. I have deployed 1Password in my organisation, and I'm also using it personally, and the "Check for vulnerable passwords" option (under Privacy) is opt in.

By suggesting that 1Password is doing the same you're lying to water down the gross abuse of trust.

"my replies were dismissive" non-apology after the initial "This issue is closed as won't fix." show pretty clear you're simply in the damage control mode, actually either not understanding or not caring why someone caring about security or privacy would be shocked and request opt-in you flatly rejected anyway.

Thanks, I read it as that regardless of the FCC ID _any_ transceiver capable of operating beyond specific ham slices of the spectrum will be banned.

Thanks!

(English is not my first language)

Ouch,

> new policy will not apply to gear that operates exclusively on amateur radio frequencies

So almost everything is getting banned, at least the existing hardware.

Linked. Also no screenshots, no details. Just a long black page with no substance. Github link form the hamburger menu doesn't work so it's a.... very premature submission at the very least.

Oopsies, that either means I can't play games or can't chat with friends because you say so.

I'd rather have my kids use e2ee apps and be smart about it than have them ignorant with false sense of security and lured into some 3rd party adhoc web chat server.

You wouldn't?

And how is it bad?

Read: write your PR. It doesn't say "do not contribute code touched by LLM".

It asks to take accountability for the thing you submit.

Technical output written by LLM is often very hard to read due to the ticks, fillers, fluff and idiosyncrasies. Even with rules or guidance.

This contribution rule ensures crap will be edited out and only the valuable content submitted. Cleaned up LLM code can be very valuable.

Can't read the article because it's paywalled, but what's the problem with an adult using a computer program to receive/consume smut?

Did I slept through the ban of the entire categories of literature, much of the content in the mainstream movies and TV, or - gasp, all the porn?

Seems weird to target one particular segment of the entertainment but not, say, explicit VR erotica or games.

(my comment reflects my opinion on this particular "my software sexts me and vendor says it's okay", and not my trust in Meta or rather lack of thereof)

Brilliant. Time to take on the outrageous MSI windows software / broken Linux support.

What was very loose in your response was adherence to facts.

Bringing six URLs with some examples and opinions (some as valuable as your own) when called off is not evidence, it's trolling.

I don't need to seek reasons to disregard your arguments because they're baseless. You decided to claim the indefensible and I decided I'm not going to allow changing the goalpost, from the "every thread of every project" into unpicking of random links.

LOL, why would I? Unless they're an evidence to your claim (eg a meta study supporting your opinion), they're irrelevant.

Funny.

Yeah, he's taking the piss instead of listing prerequisites.

Tells something about the project, IMO.

That was a bug in monitoring, afair, and no way to set the hard ceiling for the usage, no warning.

Not a FX exchange level of traffic. There was no traffic.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47787042

Not sure what you're implying my position is, I said it's *risky* to use it (because there's no spending cap and a small mistake can result in life-changing bill for a hacker/solo dev).

https://x.com/jpschroeder/status/2086144942657712500

There was more.

Why is Qualcomm your bad guy here? Do you think that was malicious, to hurt pro max?

They're not exactly fringe vendor, design bugs happen, but I thought the phone maker would be responsible for knowingly selling phones with faulty components. No?

I've read yesterday how someone's DO racked $34k bill, someone's else's $17k.

They're pretty cool indeed, just pretty risky.

The information is there, and could fit one paragraph.

Everything else is just a nonsense, watermark and fluff, scamming from time and attention - there's NO value in the filler.

To reiterate: there's no value in this sort of the LLM garbage. There's value in the information, especially when formatted and provided in the humane format.

You provided 6 links to support your claim, quote, "I specifically mentioned that the GOS crowd comments on every single topic in other projects"

From a few examples or opinions you draw a faulty, invalid and incorrect generalisation somehow implying that raising it alone proves it, or that providing a few cherry-picked examples makes the general rule.

I won't entertain you argumenting with this level of bad-faith fallacies, I just mention it is noticed and discarded as absurd - you just don't throw "every" quantifier without a body of evidence - in this case it would be a list of every topic in every project proving that someone formally linked to "GOS crowd" has commented in it.

Every single one, every single one made by someone tied to the project, because this is exactly your argument, and this is why I called it BS.

Anything less is insufficient because of the weight of the quantifier you decided to use.

All the market members are interested in you NOT having a hard cap.

If you have oligopoly without the regulations who do you think benefits more from that?

It is harder to read, and it's especially egregious in the human-facing documentation or code comments.

It takes considerable effort, rules, examples, hooks and prompt to keep the popular $model reasonably concise, and yet STILL from time to time it starts vomiting absolute garbage.

At the moment the best recalibration is "shaming" it and showing both the negative (the vomit) and positive (slop replaced with human sentences). Good for a moment (up to 200k context).

Well, yeah, it's pretty good, but has a very low free tier limit. It's barely enough to cover my IOT subnet and subnet for stuff like AVR or TVs.

So if I'm supposed to pay for ad blocking, I might as well read the article and use one of the other methods[1] instead :)

[1] I was trying Rethink several times, but WG Tunnel with ad-- and tracker-blocking service works best for me.

I did the same and just added zigbee repeater outside the fridge.

Works great.

It's the other way round.

If the device is sufficiently secure, it will be considered for the official support from GrapheneOS.

Of course, GOS can be forked by anyone, including Chinese OEM with insecure hardware.

Well, they designed some handsets (one is announced, maybe there's another one or two) to meet Pixels / GrapheneOS level of hardware security. That alone is BIG.

Then there's expectation GOS might be sold pre-installed as well.

And windows could originally fit on five 5.25" disks.

Re Dropbox: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

Simplelogin doesn't do SRS which is pretty bad for this time and age.

That makes emails forwarded from, say, PayPal or ebay marked as scam/phishing in Gmail, AND makes it impossible to report actual spam that comes through.

With a well set up SRS all these emails are recognised correctly. SimpleLogin does some naïve forwarding which messes it up.

I'm migrating out of them exactly for this reason - if I could do it on my hobby server for my personal domains, THEY should be able to do it as well.

Self hosting is a massive PITA and time burner.

I self hosted my email domains for 15+ years. Finally got fed up with the constant trickle of the maintenance and got a service for everything.

Not quite happy with that as they don't even do SRS (implying they do), but i guess I'll just migrate elsewhere.

The upside is I've got more time for myself and have less CVEs to worry about.

Self hosted apps migration in progress; I guess I'll leave media, book and file server only, off the internet, and that's it.

Yeah, and Dropbox is just rsync and scp :)