I agree that with the current state of tools around LLMs, this is very unadvisable. But I think we can develop the right ones.

• We can have tools that can generate the context/info submitters need to understand what has been done, explain the choices they are making, discuss edge cases and so on. This includes taking screenshots as the submitter is using the app, testing period (require X amount of time of the submitter actually using their feature and smoothening out the experience)

• We can have tools at the repo level that can scan and analyze the effect. It can also isolate the different submitted features in order to allow others to toggle them or modify them if they’re not to their liking. Similarly, you can have lots of LLMs impersonate typical users and try the modifications to make sure they work. Putting humans in the loop at different appropriate times.

People are submitting LLM generated code they don’t understand right now. How do we protect repos? How do we welcome these contributions while lowering risk? I think with the right engineering effort, this can be done.

Unless you have a balanced diet that anticipates your workouts and gives you the proper amount of sodium, potassium and magnesium. Sports drinks are just selling you those at a big premium. Stick with water. Eat a banana.

Isn’t it the opposite then? Since your windows will have vertical scrolls, it makes sense to tile them horizontally in order to maximize vertical space for each window, imo.

There are lots of people who could use them. Schools, libraries, poor people.

What do you mean? I follow a lot of hashtags on Mastodon. Won’t I be seeing a lot of Threads content if I’m on a server federated with them without explicitly opting into that?

It was just an example. The same can happen at the Mastodon-level instead of the Fediverse-level. Since there is some desired interop (e.g. between Mastodon and Lemmy), services do influence each other in their feature set.

I’m not sure what you mean by “a lot of what people are worried about Threads doing has already been done by Mastodon”. Do you mean that the decisions that Mastodon make influence the rest of the Fediverse? If so, let’s make sure we understand the difference here: Threads has a much more hostile disposition. Mastodon seems to have incentives aligned with the rest of the Fediverse services, and probably deserves the benefit of the doubt; Facebook has abused that benefit time and time again.

That doesn’t actually fix the issue. If Facebook is trying to set itself up like Chrome with the webplatform, or GTalk with XMPP, then they will drive the feature set of ActivityPub, whether you’re federated with them or not.

Hypothetical example:

Want to see this picture/video from someone on Threads? You need Facebook’s proprietary picture format, which has DRM baked in it. Even if you don’t federate, Mastodon, Lemmy, etc now have to take energy away from their work to adopt the proprietary picture format. It depends on the proportion Threads takes on the network and how they can leverage that position to put pressure.

Threads currently has voice notes. Should all ActivityPub services support that? If so, do we adhere to Threads’ standard or not?

I was under the impression that there were resources in that area that the US currently has privileged access to because of their alliances there. So they have a stake in making their allies come out on top.

Or flatpak

Agreed. It’s such a disingenuous argument. It’s the usual casting of poor people as lazy, and what they need is a good lashing to get them to work.

Like… No. People want dignity. People want to feel satisfied in their lives. UBI trials have shown that they use that money to get the life/jobs that they want. They’re just not gonna be forced into shitty jobs as you said. This last bit is the part not said out loud.

I summarized the two readings of the bill. (Claude AI did, really)

The first speech from the Sponsor (February 8, 2022)

Senator Pate gave a speech introducing Bill S-233, which would create a national framework to implement a guaranteed livable basic income program in Canada. She argued that poverty is a major social issue that needs to be urgently addressed. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated income inequality and disproportionately affected marginalized groups. A guaranteed livable income could improve health, social, and economic outcomes for low-income Canadians.

The speech outlined how poverty puts people at greater risk of poor health, food insecurity, and homelessness. COVID-19 has spotlighted these vulnerabilities, as lower-income groups have suffered higher mortality rates. Senator Pate cited research showing guaranteed income pilots reduced hospital visits and improved participants’ health. She argued a national program is feasible, building on existing supports like the Canada Child Benefit. Costs could be offset by reducing other programs and realizing savings in areas like healthcare.

There is growing momentum for guaranteed income, with support across party lines. Public opinion also favors it. Senator Pate positioned the bill as responding to decades of calls to action on poverty reduction. She appealed to fellow Senators to stop perpetuating myths about poverty and act boldly to implement this long-overdue policy. The speech was a compelling case for guaranteed income as a powerful tool for promoting equity and dignity.

The Response (April 18, 2023)

Senator MacDonald responded to Senator Pate’s speech introducing Bill S-233, which would create a framework for a guaranteed basic income (GBI) program in Canada. He commended Senator Pate’s advocacy for the poor, but expressed concerns about the bill’s lack of detail and fiscal implications.

Senator MacDonald outlined analyses questioning the affordability and sustainability of a GBI program. He cited research suggesting it could cost hundreds of billions annually, require tax increases, and reduce work incentives. Senator MacDonald also noted provincial studies concluding GBI is too costly and ineffective for poverty reduction compared to targeted measures.

Given Canada’s debt and deficits, Senator MacDonald argued the country cannot realistically consider implementing GBI currently. He contended the solution is generating wealth through natural resource development, not expanding welfare states. Senator MacDonald suggested Conservatives could support GBI to replace current programs if fiscal conditions improve under a future Conservative government.

In conclusion, Senator MacDonald maintained Conservatives oppose Bill S-233. While GBI aims are laudable, he believes the bill’s lack of detail and Canada’s finances make it unrealistic presently. He advocated defeating the bill or sending it to committee for further scrutiny.

Discussion last Tuesday (Oct 17)

I’ll put up a summary of the transcript once it becomes available or if I can extract it from the video.

Looks like maybe the note is down? I just get an empty list :(

I don’t see anymars wrong with it

I don’t see how one invalidates the other. Amazon’s predatory practices have killed off the competition and created a sizable price gap. Not everyone has the luxury of voting with their money.

The laws are great… For rich people.

I’m not sure, but OP specifies code being restricted to GPL, not all assets.