Because apparently U.S. courts and judges can do that. The more this is ignored by third-parties outside of the U.S., the better.

I'm not against international cooperation regarding common rules (I'm rather for), but the current context certainly doesn't designate the U.S. as a responsible custodian/enforcer of such rules.

> To summarise for yous there are three main issues for me and the last one happened today and is what pushed me through the threshold.

The compounding led to this, not that individual issues existed (and have been a problem) for a while.

I'm interested in where that estimate + number are coming from. And I'd like to point out that I don't nearly see as many people pushing back against say MacOS for "not being Windows", despite the fact that the same issue would be there. I wonder why Linux gets special treatment in that regards, when modern distros make usage very accessible.

> And that doesn't even get into gaming.

Gaming on Linux works very well. And if something doesn't, it's usually by choice (e.g. BattleEye customers not enabling it on Linux) or by sheer incompetence / malevolence (e.g. EA Games and their shitty EA App that breaks often even on Windows, and even worse on Linux in a Wine environment).

Our attention is also a finite resource (24h a day max). We already see how this has been the cause for the enshittificaton of large swathes of software like social media where grabbing the attention for a few seconds more drives the main innovation...

Where is that statement? The statement I reacted to (and with some caveats) was the following: "Libraries written in C++ or Java can generally only be used by applications written in the same language. It is difficult to get an application written in Haskell or Java to invoke a library written in C++."

Which in my opinion is not true for the reason I mentioned.

> Nothing from c++ ever gets exposed

Depends what's your definition for "getting exposed". If you mean "no C++ feature from the language gets exposed" then it's mostly true (you can still wrap certain things like allocators, though painful, but there's certain C++ features that have no real equivalent in some target languages indeed). But you can definitely expose the functionality of C++ code through a C interface.

If the interface itself has or leaks those features, no that's not easy indeed. But if those do not leak, then they can be used internally yes.

My point was not that it's easy to wrap a currently existing C++ library that has modern features in its interface in a C interface, especially post-C++11.

But that if you design something from the ground up, then it's rather easy (with a certain set of constraints). My bad for not conveying that better.

Classes can be wrapped with a bit of effort. You do need to write the constructors and the destructors manually and invoke a pair of new/delete on the C side, but it's just as you would handle a type allocated by a C library itself. You'd use it the same way. You just have the liberty to have the implementation use (mostly) C++.

Not saying they should have picked C++ but that's a bit untrue. It's quite easy given some thought into the API to invoke C++ code in basically any language which can invoke C code, since you can wrap a C++ implementation in a C interface. I've done it multiple time throughout my career (that ended up being called from Python, Swift, Objective-C/C++, Swift, Java, and Kotlin).

And as a side note, you don't have to do object-oriented programming in C++ if you don't want to.

Is there any concrete evidence of that risk being high? That doesn't come from people whose job is to sell AI?

> Codex, Opus, Gemini try to build Counter Strike

Even though the prompt mentions Counter Strike, it actually asks to build the basics of a generic FPS, and with a few iterations ends up with some sort of minecraft-looking generic FPS with code that would never make it to prod anywhere sane.

It's technically impressive. But functionally very dubious (and not at all anything remotely close to Counter-Strike besides "being an FPS").

Fitting.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojm74VGsZBU

You find expert in Ops, not in tools. People that know the fundamentals, not just the buttons to push in "certain situations" without knowing what's really going on under the hood.

I can agree that heavy & strict CoCs can be daunting and probably overkill for small open source projects. And they're far from flawless, as shown by the Rust mods resignation incidents. But to say they're useless and anti-meritocratic is to forget (and/or silence) these people that wanted to contribute in an environment where they wouldn't feel threatened (incidentally, sometimes despite being skillful contributors, so much so for the supposed meritocracy of the CoC-less projects).

I'm not sure strict CoCs are the answers to these real problems, but this feels like dismissing these problems altogether.

But if they're not hired...?

  Available to the world except the European Union, the UK, and South Korea

  3. DISTRIBUTION.
  [...]
  c. You are encouraged to: (i) publish at least one technology introduction blogpost or one public statement expressing Your experience of using the Tencent HunyuanWorld-Voyager Works; and (ii) mark the products or services developed by using the Tencent HunyuanWorld-Voyager Works to indicate that the product/service is “Powered by Tencent Hunyuan”; [...]

What's wrong with not rabidly chasing bigger wealth? Why has this become totally unacceptable in this world?

This reeks of late stage capitalist views.

> We are choosing a model that is uninspiring for capital investment

Sounds fantastic in my book.

I also like that sort of example:

> His examples include $2.6 billion to develop a carbon-capture project whose commercial viability remains unclear

What if the goal was carbon capture and not commercial viability? What worth will be your commerce if we choke ourselves out on carbon dioxyde? That's also the concept of subsidiary and state funded stuff, it's not because it's not commercially viable that it's not useful.

I'm also unconvinced by quotes like "the country is suffering from the dutch disease" while Norway seems to have done what's indicated in such a case, through its sovereign fund. Another mitigation for that is to avoid letting in too many foreign investments in, to combat the currency appreciation that comes as a symptom of dutch disease... which this article presents as a bad situation.

Sure, the country might face a challenge as the oil wells dry up, and I'm not saying everything is fine (although I think a lot of countries would prefer to have that sort of issue).

I also think cost-efficiency should be a goal, and a responsibility of the state for state-funded projects and endeavours. I'm absolutely not absolving things like overblown costs and delays in big government led projects, this shouldn't be an excuse either (although the definition of "overblown" for delays may vary from person to person).

But his article looks more like people upset that Norway's money isn't going to them, rather than worrying about the fate of Norway itself.