Not only is the current US government on a completely different level of corruption, but it's also actively trying to suppress dissent in increasingly forceful ways. And they're working hard to export this anti-human ideology all over the world.
You might have a point if Codeberg banned any and all AI-generated code, but they're not doing that. So why are you expecting them to follow your maximalist caricature of their principles?
This complaint follows the same logic as "You want companies to emit less CO2, yet you keep breathing". Sure, if you remove all nuance from a topic other people's decisions often make little sense - but that doesn't indicate a problem with their position.
I don't know, should they? Unless I've missed something, Codeberg haven't mentioned anything like this. You seem to be the only one bringing this strange idea up. So why are you asking me?
This step perfectly aligns with the political direction Codeberg had from the very start.
Who are you to now come in and demand they change to fit your political stance?
You're leaving out the tiny detail that Google, like all tech giants (and like all big companies) is pouring tons of money into politics, and that's just talking about spending out in the open. How much money do you think Google and it's investors have collectively spent to influence politics?
So no, Google shouldn't get a pass for pushing boundaries. Thinking like this only protects the capital class and the politicians responsible for this mess.
Unless you're willing to host vibe-coded projects, you're for sure opting out of society. It says so right on the second page of the social contract.
On the other hand, stealing all intellectual works ever created without compensating the authors, building a plagiarism machine and then selling access to the stolen knowledge? Now that's participating in society.
I could see this working as long as it applies per-level & only takes into account direct siblings, e.g. every epic must have a unique priority, and every feature belonging to that epic must have a unique priority, etc.
I'm not condoning ideas like that of GP, but it literally is a way to force externalities to get priced in. If oil infrastructure kept getting destroyed, the price of refined oil would rise and the investments would shift to cheaper energy where possible.
The ring can record for 12-15 hours before it's empty. I'd guess it's incredibly rare that people throw away their phone before reaching 15h * 20 = 12.5 days of active screen time.
Doesn't that mean this was doubly effective? Since the electricity generation becomes greener over time, opening later means that the DC will cause less emissions over it's lifetime. And since DC chip TDP trends upwards, the total life span being unchanged means that newer & more power-hungry chips will be installed later, again leading to fewer emissions over the whole lifetime.
It's fine if that's your takeaway as long as you're aware of the full context. I'm just tired of people misrepresenting the situation as "the German Greens made Germany demolish their nuclear plants"! Large enough parts of the population were scared of nuclear accidents, so the conservative CDU used the nuclear exit as a way of garnering votes in the then-upcoming election.
You might argue that this fear is unfounded and dumb, and again, I won't disagree. But it's not the German Green's stupidity, it's the German population's stupidity. That's why I think it's important to mention this fact every time - otherwise it will be used to fearmonger about "environmentalists want to de-industrialize and go back to living in mud huts!"
Yeah, it's crazy how successful that particular piece of propaganda is. The conservative CDU is responsible for the decommissioning of nuclear plants, while the Greens extended the lifetime of the remaining plants. It's literally the other way around, but people don't question it - it feels too good to complain about the Greens, right?
I live in Germany, and you are completely wrong, friend. The Greens sure as hell didn't start deindustrializing anyone, and the idea that after almost 20 years of centrist governments, the thing that would save us would be the next centrist government is ludicrous.
Could you explain why I "should" be celebrating that? There's no logical sequence leading from "caring about people & animals dying" to "one should think that previous mass extinctions were good".
Isn't this objection itself completely meaningless? I'll assume GP wasn't referring to AI having conscious thoughts and deciding to "be here" for a specific purpose, but as technology introduced to achieve an effect.
For example: seat belts are here to help people (by reducing the severity of injuries & the likelihood of fatalities).
The current mass extinction was in no way inevitable, it is caused by humans. We can still have an unknowably large impact on the number of lives lost. I don't know why we should pretend otherwise.