cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/22180123

It is predominantly easy to just accept bad conditions when an alternative is seemingly unfeasible. "I need this software", a lot of us will say when even presented with a better alternative. A lot of us will argue to our bones that being subject to cruelty from software developers is necessary for one potential gain or another. All of which creates a feedback loop of re-enforcement of this parasitic idea that proprietary software is somehow inescapable and we need to give up trying to do something about it. But we shouldn't give up and we should fight. Not just to switch from Windows to GNU / Linux, but to make it so Windows itself will start respecting you too.

...

With software a lot of people lose freedom all the time. Windows is so predominately used that I don't understand why people don't get crazy over this. Yet banning Windows would be a problem, arguably a worse problem, than all those people using it. You should have the right to use software that you want to use, the same way as you should have the right to agree with that drug-lord. The fact that people have the choice to use something like Windows is not a problem. The problem is that Windows is not respecting the person back. There are two ways to solve this problem. One would be to chose something else. Another would be to make Windows better.

If you think that it is impossible to push on corporations with enough force, so they would yield, and start respecting freedom of people, you don't know nothing. Progress in this area has been done numerous times. Netscape Navigator, a popular 90s web-browser, became Free Software, and now it is known as Firefox. Linux, the kernel so associated with Free Software, was at some point proprietary. Blender was proprietary before 2002. Unreal Engine started releasing their sources to people. Not under a very freedom respecting license, but it is a start. And it is way better than having nothing at all. Hell Microsoft, of all companies, started developing Free Software. Visual Studio Code, their text editor from Microsoft is mostly Free Software. Hell "Meta" the Facebook company jumped onto the Mastadon bandwagon with their Threads. Not a very good thing. But them embracing Freedom is progress. And there are more examples of this, which I hope you would provide by using the comment section, that I worked so hard to make, in the bottom of this article.

We did all this by not yielding. Most web-servers are running on Free Software because configuring proprietary software is a nightmare. Proprietary software is basically incompatible with configurability. And configurability is a key to development. Hell, most software development happens on GNU / Linux for that same reason. So much so that Microsoft reacted and put what they call "Windows Subsystem for Linux" on their system, to get some developers away from GNU / Linux. But they are doing bad job themselves. They are constantly worsening the conditions on their systems so much so that people fly out of there as soon as they know how.

Enshitification cannot happen forever. At some point people just can't take this no longer. They would not use computers at all if that came to it. But it doesn't need to come to it. There is software available right now to switch to. Software protected from enshitification by respecting freedom. But no... "I have to use it!", right?

Computers are interesting beasts. They are designed to run anything. Any computation can be done. Any digital information can be processed in any way what so ever. All you need to do is to tell the computer how to do it. And it will!

There was a time where almost nothing was possible with Free Software. It was many decades ago. And what people did about it? Did they yield to the corporations? Well some did, yes. But a lot of us stood up and said "Enough!". And we developed one tool after another. First a text editor. Then a compiler. Then a whole operating system. Why? Because we wanted those same features as in proprietary software, but without the terrible terms. Without the disrespect. Without the slavery. And it was not impossible.

Those corporations did not like it. They still don't like it. But they have no choice. We can always tell the computer to do something ourselves. And the only way they can stop us from having this freedom is if we yield to them.

The more people using Free Software, the less they can control us. The less they will have a choice. More people using Free Software is more pressure on those corporations to release their software as Free Software. They can. And they will. If people will not yield under any circumstances to their dubious demands, they will remove the demands. If people will not blindly use a program that they don't like, that disrespects them constantly, the program will have no other choice, but to stop disrespecting.

But more than that. The more people respect themselves, the more people use Free Software, the more feedback loop, more re-enforcement Freedom itself has. And in a few decades, after the war for Freedom is over, those trying to argue for proprietary software will be met with "I need to use it" as a counter argument. Which this time I will support.

Happy Hacking!!!

A screen from Dungeon Meshi's extra chapters after it finished.

The bottom line

In their paper, the MITEI team calls DAC a “very seductive concept.” Using DAC to suck CO2 out of the air and generate high-quality carbon-removal credits can offset reduction requirements for industries that have hard-to-abate emissions. By doing so, DAC would minimize disruptions to key parts of the world’s economy, including air travel, certain carbon-intensive industries, and agriculture. However, the world would need to generate billions of tonnes of CO2 credits at an affordable price. That prospect doesn’t look likely. The largest DAC plant in operation today removes just 4,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, and the price to buy the company’s carbon-removal credits on the market today is $1,500 per tonne.

The researchers recognize that there is room for energy efficiency improvements in the future, but DAC units will always be subject to higher work requirements than CCS applied to power plant or industrial flue gases, and there is not a clear pathway to reducing work requirements much below the levels of current DAC technologies.

Nevertheless, the researchers recommend that work to develop DAC continue “because it may be needed for meeting net-zero emissions goals, especially given the current pace of emissions.” But their paper concludes with this warning: “Given the high stakes of climate change, it is foolhardy to rely on DAC to be the hero that comes to our rescue.”

New fog effect in DCS world, and an updated F-5 Tiger 2.

Wayland and audio is fixed, but only on the canary branch for the moment, this isnt lazy either, they changed the whole screenshare flow to suit linux's permission prompts

Загальні бойові втрати противника з 24.02.22 по 27.11.24 (орієнтовно)

#NOMERCY #stoprussia

| Підписатися ГШ ЗСУ | t.me/GeneralStaffZSU/18926

Für einen erfolgreichen Angriff reicht der bloße Besuch einer speziell präparierten Webseite. Deutschland ist bei den Zielregionen ganz vorne mit dabei.

How can I add a simple requirement "do not train Al on the source code of the program" to AGPLv3 or GPLv3 and thereby create a new license?

Don't know is it a good place for such a question but I try :).

Why did I come up with such an stupid idea? There have been reported cases where artificial intelligence such as Github Copilot has been trained on many open source and free software projects, and in some cases it can output code snippets from GPL-licensed projects without specifying it. https://www.pixelstech.net/article/1682104779-GitHub-Copilot-may-generate-code-containing-GPL-code

I am not a lawyer, and I do not know where it is better to insert such a requirement. And how to formulate it in the best and correct form.

I understand it maybe complicated to check, to comply with this requirement and it may cause other difficulties, but I still think it can be a useful addition.

How to fit it with the fundamental freedoms of the GPL or it is unfitable?

I understand that this would make the license non-free, since it puts constraints on what the code can be used for. It's sad that it doesn't combine in some way. Maybe change requirements to do not train "closed source AI"(without code and training data of AI model publicly available).

And how can I name it? Is it better to name it without "GPL" If this new license cannot be considered free? NoAIFL or your variants :)?

Is it good to just add a new item?

For example like this:

Additional Clause:
You may not use the source code of this program, or any part thereof, to train any artificial intelligence model, machine learning model, or similar system without explicit written permission from the copyright holder.

or

Section [X]:
Restrictions on AI Training You may not use the source code of this program, or any part thereof, to train any artificial intelligence model, machine learning model, or similar system without explicit written permission from the copyright holder.

What you think about it? Maybe you already know licenses like this?

Like most games for the Game Boy Advance, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga has a color palette which is overbright and washed out in order to be visible on the hardware. Which is a terrible shame, as the game certainly has a unique visual style which deserves to be more appreciated – even now, its graphics make it preferable by many to the remake. This patch attempts to correct some of those issues, as much as possible, with a vivid and crisp candy color palette.

Source | Author: fuuzasa | Character: Rin kaenbyou