While there is no meaningful difference in the ability to write code, vim has earned it's reputation for having a learning curve. I'd argue that predisposition, that requirement for additional investment energy will bias the results towards attention to detail, and pure minimalism.

Both are correct. You can say the data belongs to the work of the author. But in context, it's trained on data that exists within the training corpus because in large part of the work and/or resources of anna's archive.

> But let's not forget that if author cannot live of what they create, they, for the most part, won't be able to continue creating.

This is a separate and distinct argument for copyright, I don't find the argument that piracy meaningfully hurts artists compelling. In the context of meaningful harm, I believe it only hurts producers or publishers, almost never the creators directly.

Bad for fans,

just because you can pick a solution that can extract the most amount of money from the thing, doesn't mean you're required to do so, (nor are you required to suggest it.)

You're describing the reality, and the difference after adding these additional rule, they'd have to be honest about what you're paying for and for how long you are allowed to use it.

Additional, if it is a subscription, it's more likely ongoing revenue could possibly fund providing the service indefinitely. Will that always happen, obviously not, but then game studios won't be as likely to do the same exact thing that catalysed the stop killing games project.

$company might see this requirement, to treat people with respect, as a threat to their business model and will respond by becoming worse.

Is only a problem if you're not willing or able to introduce additional requirements to compel ethical behavior.

The problem isn't companies are evil and we're hopeless to stop them so it's better to bend over. The problem is we're unwilling to force companies to behave ethically. Its more profitable to be evil. And it's not technically illegal to do so.... yet. (It's also more profitable to just steal.)

I believe it's possible to write laws that serve the people they're supposed to protect. It may take iteration, but you have to start somewhere.

I'm willing to tolerate the new problems that may arise from trying to solve an existing one. Presenting the unknowns as something to be avoided because it might be complicated and require additional effort to fix, is not a sane refutation.

This doesn't actually answer the question about how hard it would be. What's the specific level of effort required, and some amount of why so people can learn from your experience.

> We basically have to get as much done on a 3/4 month timeline as possible and it isn’t a priority like saving content or refunding gift cards is. Shutting down is a lot of work.

I'd rather have a working game then a refund of a gift card. Including if that means I have to stand up my own servers.

Priorities I guess

With the nearly complete PR with the port to rust, a number of people predicted that it was going to happen. They were assured it's unlikely to happen and then they were accused of overreacting over effectively nothing. When those same people who were already upset about the rewrite, learned that their predictions the same ones that were rudely dismissed, were in fact, correct, they became upset again; this time about being lied to.

Correct or not, it's reasonable to conclude they were lied to. Especially given they correctly predicted the future.

It also makes sense to have strong feelings when you're able to pattern match well enough to predict something will happen despite others trying to convince you that your predictions are incorrect.

It's not overreacting when correctly predicting the future, just because others couldn't. In the same vein, the idea that "everyone out to get you" is not called paranoia when there are people actually out to get you. That's better called being observant.

Some of those who predicted correctly might also have overreacted, but I believe that the majority understood that to be a blanket statement about prediction as a whole vs any specific individual reaction.

I'm a security geek, a clean track record means much less to me than anyone would expect. The comment from the article mentioning that there was no evidence of exploitation explains why. I would never have noticed that implication, because I don't think it exists. (And it's completely unreasonable if it does), so that's your own deal... it's not a good conclusion to take from the article.

The only thing that matters is how much any given owner cares. Are they willing to go the extra mile to make sure things get done correctly. That's the best signal about if you can trust a project. Seems like you give a shit, so I wouldn't be too hard on yourself. The people that matter can tell, (everyone who can't tell is already willing to lie so they can be safely ignored!)

> In fact, even months later, the lasting effects have been panicking over anything that is remotely suspicious. The most recent example was just a few days ago. Had just gotten on the plane to go on vacation when someone Liked the original "I've been pwned" post on Bluesky. I misread the notification as being a new message to me saying "You've been pwned" and started to panick.

You haven't dealt with it yet, if you want to get your attention back so you can spend it on more important things than worrying about something from the past, you gotta talk to somebody. A therapist would help the fastest, but friends and family are often just as good.

> I'd have had no way to address it and it would have ruined the small chance per year I get to have a break.

Seriously, having been there myself it's not worth it... you're just allowing them to DoS your brain by allowing them to live rent free in your head. The only thing that matters is how seriously you take the remediation. Attention to detail, and the willingness to go the extra mile for security defects to tie up all loose ends is what matters. It's not your job to fix everybody's issue yourself, even if they don't or can't. You still have to enjoy life, or you burn out, and some idiot that doesn't care will take your place. Then they really win.

You're not responsible for the security or stability of anybody using nightly packages. (Only maintainer signed and tagged releases)

> The attack last year wasn't me misunderstanding security. It was the sum of many, many small things

so, a misunderstanding of how the little things actually impact security?

> (my history with and perception of npm especially w.r.t. their security posture and poor outreach over the years, being stressed out overall, and being in a rush at that particular moment, and a few other personal things) coming together in a perfect storm that resulted in the attack.

Those other personal things are the kinda thin that being able to enjoy a vacation make much easier. You can't help anybody if you don't put on your own mask first... Well... You definitely can, you're obviously trying to do now, but it's needless harder.

Npm, and the JavaScript ecosystem is a fucking joke. It's a mistake to blame yourself (or any maintainer) for how difficult it is to meet the bar for both security and accessibility. Worrying about the difficulty in consistentenly demonstrating the perfection required for security is a fool's errand, and your allowing the bad guys to get what they want by letting it live rent free in your head, it won't go away for as long as you worry about it more than you talk about it.

And I say all of that as the person who has multiple times, made the argument that it's perfectly fine to name an engineer and their decisions or incompetence as the root cause analysis in an official incident report. (Pilot Error is a thing): If I thought you were responsible, or had done anything wrong, I'd gladly blame you. Smart people don't care about mistakes, because they are always noise in the signal. I care about effort. People who give a shit are much more important and valuable.

I run my own email server on DO, nothing I send goes to spam. (I normally follow up on nearly all emails in case you're assuming some flavors of sample bias.)

I imagine you have some sort of argument, I'm guessing it's a flavor of optimizing for opportunity cost?

Try to apply that same argument to English, or math... does it still hold? I'd hope not!

Instead, teach them to find joy in life. Encourage them to find passion in something creative or expressive.

I would teach my kid programming, I'll also teach them how to make a fire from friction. It doesn't matter if they ever actually need to use it, it'll make them a better human. Maybe they find they love programming, maybe they find out they love backpacking and decide to hike the PCT.

Either way I've given them a skill that might help them with some future I can't possibly predict for them.

> We do this every day. I'm sorry to say, we are indeed shipping in days what used to take weeks.

I've been searching for months for evidence of this kinda thing. Do you have receipts you can share? Or is it more of the same "just trust me bro"?