For big PRs it would make a difference if I didn't have to check everything for malicious links and junk without spending my own money or time.

To argue the other way, I guess some of it is arbitrary repository rules. Package maintainers for cadence releases don't just push the latest updates, security updates get back ported, etc. And the DIY approach of the AUR/NPM/p PyPI is occasionally a burning tyre fire of security issues or just shitty duplication and name collisions.

You could argue we should all be on layered immutable distributions but the userland layer (flatpak, Appimage, snap) isn't without complication.

So I guess everything is fine?

It's amazing how quickly you can spin from that to ownership with limitations.

Obviously it's bullshit. They can't say it's theirs, licensed to you because that would stop people using it commercially... So we have this Gordian knot of logic to explain that we should pay to used their models and infrastructure, and not use the output how we like because their models and infrastructure are theirs and exploiting that would be really mean. The argument makes them look like a petulant child.

But it's just a weak EULA, a flimsy non-compete. They say output is yours? It's yours. Do whatever you like with it. But don't be surprised if they limit access if Anthropic decide it's unsavoury.

But this is being shared outside that context. Deciphering acronyms for the HN titles would seem like an okay start. There are several common use alternatives. Wouldn't hurt to be explicit.

No, EA earn every criticism and this move to PE will do absolutely nothing to improve their business practices.

The point of my caps, above was that I'm writing for me. If I think my post is improved by me prompting a LLM for an illustration, that's up to me. I'm not writing for your heuristic, I'm trying to express myself every way I can. The time where you find individuals untainted or unaided by these tools is over.

I'd try to just content by it's content rather than it's illustrations.

No, we don't. For all we know this whole blog is an agent larping as a neverLLMer. Your stance says nothing about who wrote what.

Just as using images freely generated by ChatGPT for a PERSONAL blog post because the author liked it but couldn't express it themselves doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the post. It tells you they're not an artist. It tells you that they prefer some imagery over blank space.

The rest is you and your projections. And that's okay too. Jog on.

If they're found to have held onto it, processed it or shared it, they'll be told off very sternly and asked politely to not do it again.

And aside the greenhouse effect, we're also using more power than we've ever used before, building 10Msqft boxes that ultimately turn electricity into heat. We could go all-solar and we'd still be warming our environment.

And when did button get a formation property anyway?

I've been doing this forever and I'm still learning.

And just more broadly, some people have lives, family where they can't just be expected out on the piss in the afternoon.

Admitting it on forum is the in. Just like admitting you've been working while up on ket.

That's one hell of a lawsuit you're opening yourself up to there. People who don't drink have significant overlap with protected classes.

What struck most of all is the deep disconnect between author and authority. The tools one (tools are better than they've even been) stood out as a great example of this. People like to say things got worse, but it read like somebody asked a LLM to show how they got worse, ignoring all the ways in which they got better. A human who'd ever used tools would recognise the omission.

They go hand in hand, the bigger the render area, the more game has to be simulated at once.

Without continued external investment, the cycle stops, and we all learn what "too big to fail" looks like this time.

Weeding is the natural process of disposing of less-demand books. Like the rest of us, libraries operate in finite space, so if they want new books, they have to remove ones their users aren't using. Most libraries will try to sell books before disposing of them in any destructive way.

What similarities do you see here?

In a way that matters here, I don't believe you are correct, but I cede I haven't the time or machinery to hand to prove it.