> There was no ill intent by evil corporation, but rather a desire to support functionality that some customers expect of VS Code w.r.t. AI-generated code.
What metric did Microsoft use to assess that VS Code users "expect" their commits to have unsolicited messages added to them?
> Obviously, it should not be on when disableAIFeatures is on and it should not be reporting changes that were not done by AI.
Did you discuss adding these messages with your legal department?
What is Microsoft's position on adding such authorship statements to the code Microsoft did not author?
Or is Microsoft stating that using LLM assistants makes Microsoft a co-author of the code?
Does Microsoft have copyright claims on the code if LLM assistants are used at any time during its creation?
Of course one can and should read the script before running it, but the instructions promote just the opposite.
Even if we skip a step ahead and consider that this script then installs a binary blob... the situation doesn't get any better, does it?
If you find any of this as something normal and acceptable, I can only strongly disagree. Such bad practices should be discouraged.
On the other hand, using a distro's package manager and a set of community approved packages is a far better choice when installing software, security vise. I really don't see how you could compare the two without plainly seeing the difference, from a security perspective.
As an alternative, if the software is not available through a distro's package manager, one should inspect and compile the code. This project provides the instructions to do so, they are just not promoted as a first choice.
I can't help coming to a conclusion, that you've largely made my point about bad practices and having a wrong mindset when it comes to software security.
Was the above post propaganda? Or was it just a user recommendation?
Perhaps the reason it gets mentioned often is simply because it's a good piece of software. Then again, perhaps not!
In any case, I'd be careful about using 3rd party DNS (and other) services, but that's for the user to decide, depending on the situation one is in.
Using one's own resolver is always a good practice, even in countries where ISPs are not selling customer's private data to anyone that comes along and where governments don't monitor and repress their citizens on every step...
We live in strange times where even EU countries misuse resolvers to censor certain web pages, while, for example, independent Balkan countries do not. Go figure...
Afternoon becomes an evening when the sun starts to set. An evening becomes a night when the sun is fully set.
"I was up at two this morning" has several implied meanings. One of them equals to "I was up until two last night", others do not.
If you were up until two last night, you might legitimately express that with "I was up at two this morning". But if you were up at two this morning, saying "I was up until two last night" might or might not convey the truth. For example, you might have just gotten up.
Many if not all languages have nuances like this. I don't find them particularly odd at all, or specific to English, for that matter...
That got me wondering at a first glance too. But in this case, the word stands for "čuda" not CUDA.
Čuda = miracles, wonders, in Serbian (and several other languages).
And odd conglomerate of words from different languages perhaps, one even anglicized (ASCIIzed?) at that... Well, it does get the people talking, I suppose.
It's done afterwards, once you've safely reduced the speed of your vehicle, not during the initial emergency braking.
It's basically a heads up for all the vehicles far behind you that haven't yet noticed a sudden change in the flow of the traffic. Gives them more time to reduce speed without haste.
You don't actually need to give the changes back to the community, you only need to give the changed code to those you distribute the modified software to.
In other words:
- if you don't publish the modified software, you don't need to give the changed code to anyone
- if you distribute the modified software to a single entity, you only need to give the changed code to that single entity (and they absolutely do not need to publish it)
- etc.
I know people mostly view this through the eyes of large public projects, forks, etc., but there more to it then that.
That being said, according to their blog, browser users aren't tracked or profiled by Vivaldi.
They claim to make money from search engine partner deals and from bookmark partner deals. And to be honest, I have no reason to think that the statement isn't true.
Just to note for those who don't know, FTPS and SFTP are completely different protocols.
The similarity of the names often causes confusion, but SFTP has nothing to do with the venerable FTP.
SFTP stands for "SSH file transfer protocol" and it's a completely different beast. IMHO, a somewhat unfortunate naming choice, but that's water under the bridge.
(...while FTPS stands for "FTP over SSL", and that actually uses plain old FTP with an additional SSL/TLS layer...)
> The snap is not running macOS on mac hardware. Even if you run it on a mac laptop, it's using virtualized qemu hardware.
Right. "Virtualized hardware", as in, you know, software. In other words, QEMU is software that runs on actual nonvirtualized hardware, in this laptop's example produced by Apple.
If you think differently, I invite you to virtualize a sailboat and than sail with it out to sea.
I suspect that somewhere along the way, the difference between virtaulized sailboats and actual sailboats will become more readily apparent... :)