> It is our collective assessment that the jury verdict against Greenpeace in North Dakota reflects a deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations that denied Greenpeace the ability to present anything close to a full defense.

https://www.trialmonitors.org/statement-of-independent-trial...

Commons can fail, but the whole point of Hardin calling commons a "tragedy" is to suggest it necessarily fails.

Compare it to, say, driving. It can fail too, but you wouldn't call it "the tragedy of driving".

We'd be much better off if people didn't throw around this zombie term decades after it's been shown to be unfounded.

The "tragedy", if you absolutely need to find one, is only for unrestricted, free-for-all commons, which is obviously a bad idea.

Unfortunately, the amount of work you need to just maintain the build across language and bazel version upgrades is incredibly high. Let alone adding new build steps, or going even slightly off the well-trodded path.

I feel like Bazel would need at least 5 more full-time engineers to eventually turn it into an actually usable build tool outside Big Tech. Right now many critical open source Bazel rules get a random PR every now and then from people who don't actually (have time to) care about the open source community.

My go-to now is to use mise + just to glue together build artifacts from every language's standard build tools. It's not great but at least I get to spend time on programming instead of fixing the build.

I wanted to make this point here explicitly because lately I've seen this complete erasure of the moral dimension from AI and tech, and to me that's a very scary development.

Notice the phrase "from a moral standpoint". You can't argue against a moral stance by stating solely what is, because the question for them is what ought to be.

I agree it would have been nicer if the message was more polite. But if you compare that to having the backbone follow through with meaningful long-term changes against a corporation you don't trust or respect, there shouldn't even be a discussion.

And don't even get me started with the people who come in here just to point out that Codeberg isn't perfect either.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45692505

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

No, not really: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45232159

> This isn’t selling your soul;

There is a plethora of ethical reasons to reject AI even if it was useful.

Also: productivity is for machines, not for people.

That's what's valuable to you. For me the zero to one part is the most rewarding and fun part, because that's when the possibilities are near endless, and you get to create something truly original and new. I feel I'd lose a lot of that if I let an AI model prime me into one direction.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45369902

Points: 7

# Comments: 0

I'm in the same boat (granted, 10 years less) but can't really relate with this. By the time any part becomes boring, I start to automate/generalize it, which is very challenging to do well. That leaves me so little boring work that I speed run through it faster by typing it myself than I could prompt it.

The parts in the middle – non-trivial but not big picture – in my experience are the parts where writing the code myself constantly uncovers better ways to improve both the big picture and the automation/generalization. Because of that, there are almost no lines of code that I write that I feel I want to offload. Almost every line of code either improves the future of the software or my skills as a developer.

But perhaps I've been lucky enough to work in the same place for long. If I couldn't bring my code with me and had to constantly start from scratch, I might have a different opinion.

Even worse: because it makes it seem like the EU law is just meritless pestering of people, they are actually fighting for the right for worse sites to spy on their visitors.

It's baffling.

They need to be stored, but do they technically have to be stored by just one AppView? I get that it's a 100x easier to implement it like that, but I don't think a distributed search would've been technically impossible (although, granted, necessarily it would have had worse UX).

Choosing this feature and then implementing it like they did was a technical choice. Technical choices have consequences and this, I think, was the one which will prevent BlueSky from reaching any meaningful decentralization.

And saying "you can create an inferior UX with affordable costs" is not a real answer. Any meaningful decentralization IMO can only happen if it's affordable to create feature identical nodes. That can only happen if you refuse to implement features in ways that need centralization to scale.