If an OSS project wants to thrive, it would behoove them to implement things that people want. I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all solution there, but they shouldn’t be surprised if nobody wants to use their software because it doesn’t do what they want.

INFO: What is the case at hand?

There are kettles out there with steeping baskets like you’d put in a mug for loose leaf, but those probably get stained/dirty quickly. I wouldn’t use one.

Removed by mod

Most sensible Russian legal decision:

My point is that the described scenario - “all money not absolutely required for existence is in the hands of the bourgeoisie” - hasn’t happened under free market systems as often as it has in communist/“state capitalist” countries like the Soviet Union.

I’m sorry I got you mixed up with the other person. But I find it interesting they haven’t answered that question yet.

That sounds an awful lot like an authoritarian state seizing control of the economy (for example, the Soviet Union). That most certainly didn’t happen through free market forces.

And I notice you still haven’t answered my question. Why is that? I think it would be pretty simple to answer, wouldn’t it? (Edit: got the wrong username)

We’re competing for people’s cash. If we do a good job at getting it, we get more of it. But how do you define “win”?

Also, please answer my question. If there is no competition, then how do you have anything other than a monopoly?

Preface: If all you want is to get a simple script/program going that will more or less work for your purposes, then I understand using AI to make it. But doing much more than this with it will not help you.

If you want to actually learn to code, then using AI to write code for you is a crutch. It’s like trying to learn how to write an essay by having ChatGPT write the essays for you. If you want to use an API in your code, then you’re setting yourself up for greater failure the more you depend on AI.

Case in point: if you want to make a module or script for Foundry VTT, then they explicitly tell you not to use AI, partly because the models available online have outdated information. In fact, training AI on their documentation is explicitly against the terms of service.

Even if you do this and avoid losing your license, you run a significant risk of getting unusable code because the AI hallucinated a function or method that doesn’t actually exist. You will likely wind up spending more time scouting the documents for what you actually want to do than if you’d just done it yourself to begin with.

And if the code works perfectly now, there’s no guarantee that it will work forever, or even in the medium term. The software and API receive updates regularly. If you don’t know how to read the docs and write the code you need, you’re screwed when something inevitably gets deprecated and removed. The more you depend on AI to write it for you, the less capable you’ll be of debugging it down the line.

This begs the question: why would you do any of this if you wanted to make something using an API?

If we don’t have competition, how will that be anything other than monopoly?

The APRS website hasn’t even started using HTTPS yet.

To be fair, Trump has had a policies page on his website for much longer than Kamala Harris.

Discord offers automatic compression for images uploaded from mobile, but not from desktop IIRC. It’s weird.

If by “democracy” you mean the broad philosophy of people having a right to decide the law for themselves in some way, then I would argue that it’s better than even a “good” dictator. Dictators can be fickle, capricious, manipulative, and more while appearing to be utterly golden individuals outwardly. What happens when culture changes but the dictator doesn’t like where it’s going and refuses to change his ways? Is he still “good”? And as others have mentioned, how do you quantify “good” anyhow? You’re appealing to a moral standard presumably outside the law, so what happens when that standard doesn’t match what the people believe?

So like Facebook?

MAID is also for people who live, by some measure, intolerably painful lives for which there isn’t a treatment IIRC. Many mental disorders could be classified as such and make someone eligible for MAID. This will disincentivize people from trying to treat these disorders and instead “end people’s suffering” in a much darker way.

I was mistaken in my previous posts. I wasn’t aware that the effective date of MAID for mentally ill people had been pushed out again. But the fact remains it’s in the plans and it’s very likely to become a reality; if they didn’t want to do it, they would have revoked it entirely.

Since you believe bullshit…

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/bk-di.html

I was mistaken in that it was currently available. However, they’re planning on making it available for solely mental conditions in the future and have been pushing the eligibility date back for a few years. The fact remains they think this is a good idea and want to do it.

Healthcare professionals wouldn’t agree to that…

They’re already agreeing to killing their patients to begin with. Healthcare decisions are made based on cost constantly. The door is open, anything is possible now. And not only that, but there have been plenty of unethical medical practices in history that are no longer done, like the lobotomy.

Canada has made MAID available to people who only have mental illnesses or addictions. The mask has slipped.

If that’s the case, then why does Canada allow people only with mental illnesses and addictions to seek out MAID? And how do you know for sure that this isn’t going to expand as a cost-cutting measure throughout any healthcare system that enables it?

It is genocide.