kuberoot

Yes, apple should allow that, and Sony should allow that. Your "gotcha" seems pretty stupid, because "allow" doesn't mean "facilitate" - it's not Apple's responsibility to make those things work on their devices, but Apple is going out of their way to prevent individuals from making those things happen on their own.

If you license your project under GPL, and somebody submits some code (like through a pull request) that ends up in the library you use, you are now also bound by the GPL license, meaning you also have to publish the source of any derivatives.

The way to avoid it is to use something like a CLA, requiring every contributor to sign an agreement giving you special rights to their code, so you can ignore the GPL license in relation to the code they wrote. This works, but is obviously exploitative, taking rights to contributions while giving out less.

It also means if somebody forks the project, you can't pull in their changes (if you can't meet GPL terms, of course), unlike with MIT, where by default everybody can make their own versions, public or private, for any purpose.

Though it's worth noting, if you license your code under MIT, a fork can still add the GPL license on top, which means if you wanted to pull in their changes you'd be bound to both licenses and thus GPL terms. I believe this is also by design in the GPL license, to give open-source an edge, though that can be a bit of a dick move when done to a good project, since it lets the GPL fork pull in changes from MIT versions without giving back to them.

I don't think it'd be more work for them, since they presumably have to go back to the facility anyway.

Not necessarily, if they have "magic tech", they could be uploading a virus that rapidly spreads across the entire internet, making every machine broadcast its data through electromagnetic waves or something like that, picking up all those transmitions with said magic tech.

It would still take longer just to read the data off off all the storage, but theoretically not DSL

We're all the yellow guy sometimes

NFTs try to introduce artificial scarcity

Just want to add to that, NFTs aren't inherently about artificial scarcity, they could also be used to track ownership of rights or real life items without a central authority that everybody needs to trust.

Of course, cryptobros immediately went to pushing them as an investment scheme, and the actual implementations are slow, inefficient, and downright expensive to use. I don't think anybody has managed to make NFTs actually useful, but I imagine the original creators weren't looking to create... Whatever this is.

Obligatory xkcd.

I don't know enough to say how accurate the numbers are, but the sentiment stands - if it's a password you're memorizing, longer password will probably be better.

Doesn't change the voting situation. Since your votes need to be seen by other instances, Lemmy needs a mechanism for federating votes. Since instances are untrusted, there needs to be some way of preventing manipulation. Thus, AFAIK, Lemmy simply shares your votes across instances, letting each one tally them up. As a side effect, any server admin of an instance you can interact with can also get a list of all your votes.

Having two different configurations of assets requires making a system that can switch between them, separate deployments for them, some way to actually fetch the asset pack by the users, testing to make sure both configurations work correctly, actually deploying the separate asset pack during an update, and then spending time fixing bugs that inevitably come up with any added complexity.

Could they do it? Absolutely. Should they do it? Probably.

Would there be no downside, no tradeoff? Claiming so is plainly ridiculous.

Linux users are, as a group, less likely to share accurate telemetry and to masquerade as other OSes

I'm going to assume you meant "more likely" on masquerading, but I do want to point out, Linux users also tend to be more proud of their choice and to want to contribute to the statistics, want to be represented. Maybe those numbers effectively cancel out, but I doubt they significantly lean towards underrepresentation for the reason you mentioned.

It's a joke, because rejected PRs show up as red on GitHub, open (pending) ones as green, and merged as purple, implying AI code will naturally get rejected.

GitHub, for one, colors the icon red for AI contributions and green/purple for human ones.