Did Wikileaks achieve anything else but raising the degree of angst and learned helplessness in mere mortals of this world? Maybe there occurred a revolution somewhere against the entities whose corpus delicti was leaked? Any supreme moron convicted? Anything positively changed in the global state of affairs?

Nope, all it did is communicate the message about how both utterly corrupted and invulnerable those entities are, and everyone trying to expose their crimes is doomed, like the character of Assange.

In simple words: Wikileaks == controlled opposition.

- developers willing to use AI crutches instead of their own brains to write their code;

- developers unwilling to pay other developers while being paid themselves by companies whose profit models are often far removed from the honest craft of developing something wholesome.

Expect a world-wide blockchain-based banker-controlled centralized biometrically authenticated One World Currency soon, which you can loose access to for walking a red light, wearing a pajama in public, not joining the next scheduled Je Suis Charlie charade or refusing to jab.

That was called 'communism', had been attempted to implement, resulted in millions of deaths and miserably failed regardless due to the physics of the process.

The heat transfer agent is not the problem per se, it's the ability of some entities to create it out of thin air and pump into the system, as well as shady mechanisms of its distribution.

Moreover, ideals like that don't simply pop out of the blue and right into the collective psyche without comparable infusions.

To drive it home in case lines between dots are not obvious: open source ideology, github and copilot are merely successive stages in the process of production of profit. The next step is obvious, get rid of human programmers and save on their wages.

This is where ideals lead.

Agenda-supportive, virtue-signalling, hype-bandwagoning, karma-worshipping, high-horse-scornful, cowardly-downvoting, way too many.

Snowflake-fragile, even more.

But no, there's always a discourse about how unfair, unethical, greedy etc the developers of closed source / commercial aka overpriced software are, which vividly displays that the actual sentiment in these complaints is pure and simple envy, towards better things that cost more, towards developers who make a living off their own projects and don't feel obliged to worship the ideals of open source, free as in beer, cheap as in dirt etc...