yyny

a prosthetic?

"Law enforcement need lawful ways to enter a home"

"See! The government is trying to pick all our locks"

Okay dude. Taking off the tinfoil hat for a second here, but maybe they're just trying to do the thing they say they are doing, namely, lessen friction to obtain things like camera footage, financial data, and internet usage.

"infinite looping, deadlocks, race conditions, memory leaks... these are the words I use to describe my ex-girlfriend"

Privacy laws don't prevent foreign entities from influencing elections and making children addicted.

It just sucks having to pick between two extremes.

I moved to SourceHut from Github when their site stopped functioning without a JITed JavaScript engine or when you block certain AI elements. The bloat just got insane. Now it seems like I have to move again since SourceHut moved too far in the other extreme by embracing "minimalism" not only of their service but also of their users.

> you can [self-]host

I used GitHub and then SourceHut precisely so I don't have to do this.

Same, and for the same reason, I considered the same when they added the "content related to cryptocurrency or blockchain technologies" clause as well, though I do not see the value in these technologies.

I will add that the policy is not just dumb and unenforceable, it is also poorly reasoned. Many of the arguments apply equally to other technologies, or don't apply to AI-generated code in the first place.

If resource usage/hardware costs are a concern, should games and databases be banned? If financial ethics are a concern, should SaaS services/apps with micro-transactions be banned? If ownership is a concern, should closed-source software or private repos be banned? And so on.

I think it is obvious that this choice, much like the crypto/blockchain choice, was made purely because of the "vibes" (if you will) around AI, and not for any logical reason.