this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
12 points (92.9% liked)
TechTakes
2302 readers
65 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well, at least the website isn't vibe-coded. Considering the creator's an out-and-proud promptfondler (as seen on his Twitter), that's genuinely shocking.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(16 replies)
Remember the german lawyer who tried to vibe code some compiler fixes. He did it again and learned nothing
the obnoxious self-aggrandizement is dripping all over the text, not the least of which when he conceptualizes himself as a part of a "new and potentially valuable class of contributors", as if the addition of a slop-generator can transform the layperson into someone capable of contributing to a complex software project. but that's old news. here's what's getting me now:
For a project like Mesa, which uses the permissive MIT license, accidentally incorporating a snippet of code that carries the "viral" obligations of the GPL could potentially trigger a legal catastrophe. Faith Ekstrand drove this point home with a chillingly practical example: "If we piss off Nvidia and they sue us, the project is over. It doesn't matter whether or not we can theoretically win."
this is a legal issue -- this should be Seyfarth's home turf! obviously he can't code and has a sneering contempt for anyone who learns to do so, but in this micro-instance, giving an informed legal opinion on how this issue could be handled would actually be in the Mesa project's best interests! let's see how he
However this is a hypothetical scenario and there are several ways to mitigate such legal risks. Most projects already shift the legal burden to the contributor. The project still has to reject any code that openly violates the licensing terms, but if such violations are not obvious, there is little legal risk to the project itself.
"it wouldn't happen, and even if it did, you could just try to sacrifice your individual developers to NVIDIA one at a time and hope that makes them go away." great cool thank you. this is the best you've got with your legal background. fantastic. what an utter tool
load more comments
(10 replies)
Semi-relevant, Matthew Garrett has won a court case against the kooks running Techrights:
https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115581959497817474
About the only positive thing you can say about Schestowitz (and probably his wife) is that they are rabidly anti-AI, but that is only because they are also rabidly against anyone who does not subscribe to their personal purity-test vision of Free Software (basically it's them, RMS, and maybe his parrot).
I have an unhealthy interest in them, because during the Andrew Lee putsch they were basically on his side, until he fucked even them, and I kinda drifted into their IRC server to see what was up. It was my unwelcome introduction to the toxic underbelly of FLOSS, with rampant RMS-worship, misogyny, racism and incipient techno-fascism. I ducked out quite quickly.
Tellingly, Techrights is all in on the Gemini protocol.
for what it's worth schestowitzes don't seem to understand that they lost a defamation case and should stop digging.
That seems potentially unwise.
such words never stopped dr. roy before.
I never heard of Techrights before, they seem rather unhinged, but I had a good laugh when I saw this article about Lunduke. Not even the floss fundamentalists like Lundukes flavor of racist Linux "journalism".
So I got jumpscared recently by that couple. I was listening to one of my many favourite podcasts, Threedom, when on the most recent episode, "I Definitely Tuned Out and I Agree With You", this exchange happened, starting around 44 minutes, give or take 10 for ads.
::: spoiler spoiler tagged exchange, in case you are a pisspig* and don't want spoilers. Context: the hosts are talking about how they value fostering their children's expressive abilities, even if that means their children do things like scream in inappropriate situations.
Scott: I guess what I'm trying to say is that some parents would look at us, and say, like, "oh, you're not teaching them how to act in social situations or whatever,"
Paul: Yes, you should slap them across the face, in the store.
Scott: Who was that... that... that, like, person who... there's some parent out there that thinks that you need to like have a million kids or whatever and uh, and a paper writer followed them around and he just smacked his kid right in front of the paper writ-, er... the journalist? Uh, anyway...
Lauren: Paper writer?
Scott: Yeah, sorry, sorry, Journalist.
Paul: Couldn't sound more specific, and yet I don't know.
Tried too hard transcribing this and still feel like I did a bad job.
Anyway, gosh, congrats to them on their extreme success in being platformed. Couldn't have been a more deserving couple. /s
*pisspig is the name given to a fan of the podcast Threedom. The fans picked the name, the hosts aren't really sure why.
No idea if it was intentional given how long a series' production cycle can be before it ends up on tv/streaming, but it's hard not to see Vince Gilligan's Pluribus as a weird extended impact-of-chatbots metaphor.
It's also somewhat tedious and seems to be working under the assumption that cool cinematography is a sufficient substitute for character development.
BB and BCS were both kinda slow burns IMO. That’s not to say the new show is worth holding onto (haven’t seen it), just commenting on the trend.