If people actually bothered to look at any of his code, and the reactions of people knowledgeable at the time to his code (and/or his intellectual bloviations), the damage to "open source" would be so thorough that we'd probably all be using Microsoft products for an indefinite period. However, it's far easier to just nod your head and pretend he's very smart (in that reddit sort of way).
Personally, I love reading about people's reactions to the abomination of fetchmail, although my absolute favorite is him yapping with pride that he has code in basically everything -- which is ESRspeak for him writing libgif. Of course, dig down into that and you'll find he didn't write anything... he ported an MSDOS library someone else had written. Many such cases.
> Playboy Magazine in the 50s and 60s had a reputation for, among other things, reviewing hi-fi systems, pop albums and surprisingly good fiction. Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione must have wanted some of the tech + fiction market because he and his wife Kathy Keeton launched Omni Magazine in 1978.
Either that got ninja-edited in the 8 minutes since you posted that comment, or you misread that paragraph.
I'm sure I'm supposed to sympathize with the plight of the poor Amazon coder, but since everyone in the valley are encouraged to systematically shit on everyone they believe is beneath them.... I can't.
...and don't tell me they don't. I've been to way too many corporate parties and seen how they act when they think no one is watching.
I have the privilege of working for a robotics company small enough that I (a SW dev) can walk a few doors down the hallway and talk to anyone from mechanics, to electronics, to sales, to the people who actually operate the robors on customers' sites. And I have a lot of respect for people who pull a 16 hour shift in freezing cold or with water pouring down their necks.
For the company to function, it requires a lot of people with different skills to come together and each do what they're best at.
As Doctorow says, this is why huge corps segregate people into casts - to keep them from seeing the other's contribution and to keep them hating the other instead of hating those who exploit both.
> As Doctorow says, this is why huge corps segregate people into casts - to keep them from seeing the other's contribution and to keep them hating the other instead of hating those who exploit both.
This is my point. I've grown tired of telling people to hate those who exploit us all when they're tossed crumbs from their master's table and decide that is sufficient to make common cause with him.
I'll shed a tear for the common coder when they can spare a tear for the rest of us.
> I'm sure I'm supposed to sympathize with the plight of the poor Amazon coder, but since everyone in the valley are encouraged to systematically shit on everyone they believe is beneath them.... I can't.
That's one of the mechanisms capital uses to keep the workers under control: divide and conquer. AI hurts workers, and benefits the shareholders, but some workers will stay on the sidelines due to schadenfreude towards arrogant software engineers.
But I've said it before: for people who see themselves as soooo smart, software engineers have been pretty fucking dumb. They fooled themselves into thinking their high salaries and 401ks to meant they were like their bosses and not other workers, so behaved like temporarily embarrassed billionaires: embracing libertarianism, regurgitating anti-union propaganda from their bosses.
If software engineers were actually smart, we'd have unionized decades ago, when we had more power.
The truly aggravating part is that if they really wanted to thumb their noses at the Attorney General's office and get away with it there's a pretty straightforward way to do it: Fork every single project they want to offer through their operating system and thereby become a first-party developer-distributor thereof. AB 1043 is worded in such a way that it really doesn't apply if the operating system developer doesn't provide a covered application store (see 1798.501(a)(1)). This should apply in every other such app store accountability act in every other state (save Texas, since this is the text they seemed to adopt after the Texas law was challenged). Instead, all they're going to accomplish is getting pimpslapped by the Attorney General's office.
Maybe they're interested in performative noncompliance, but I'm not. I'd rather engage in creative and effective noncompliance.
The site makes it very clear that the purpose is very explicitly not to "get away with it", it's to try and get fined, presumably to then challenge the legality of the laws in a higher court.
They argue that they are a coverd application store.
'Definition: "Covered Application Store"
'"Covered application store" means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or can download an application.
— Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.500(e)(1)
'This website is a "publicly available internet website" that "distributes and facilitates the download of applications" (specifically: a bash script) "to users of a general purpose computing device." We are also a covered application store. Debian's APT repositories are covered application stores. The AUR is a covered application store. Any mirror hosting .deb files is a covered application store. GitHub is a covered application store. Your friend's personal website with a download link to their weekend project is a covered application store.'
Yes, I know that. I'm saying this is utterly futile and if they really wanted to accomplish something they'd structure themselves as I described above. If their goal is to highlight the absurdity of the law... they won't actually accomplish anything. The Attorney General is not going to magically decide this was a terrible idea and reverse course. If they want to change the law then this isn't the way to do it either. If they want to ensure business as usual then what I propose is one way to do that.
Generally the point is for these things to go to court to be struck down or otherwise limited. This is a valid and regularly used means to change the law. You seem to think that you are aware of how the legislations definition will be applied, but that is not known until these things are taken to court.
I don't understand what you mean by "intellectual mode".
I mean that it's a kind of lowest common denominator average where it's more important to seem reasonable and to not upset anyone rather than be really good in some ways and bad in others.
If human knowledge were a pyramid, LLMs just make the pyramid flatter, i.e. shorter, wider at the bottom, and narrower at the tip. It makes Humans dumber.
There are already "App Store Accountability Act"s present in Texas and Utah. I believe South Dakota is the other state that has one in their House right now. So no, this isn't California being a nanny state. Actually, California's is a lot better than the ones found in other states since literally you're allowed self-attestation of your age bracket (i.e. you don't have to supply an ID or some other such mechanism for independent verification). It's literally the equivalent of what they used to do with porn sites back in the day when they would ask you if you were over 18 -- and if you said yes, well, we tried! (Gold stars for everybody!)
In all seriousness, though, this is the only way where politicians get to pretend they did something and the rest of us get to avoid getting royally screwed. If parents were given dumbed-down versions of the tools that already exist to manage corporate-owned cell phones and laptops then there'd be a lot less for people to complain about (not that it would stop perpetually incompetent parents from pointing the finger at everyone but themselves for their own failings, of course, but at least the vast majority who AREN'T those people would be satisfied).
Good fiction writers seem to have a very deep understanding of human behavior, both as individuals and groups/systems. It's probably a combination of art imitating life, imitating art, and part prediction based on this understanding how human behavior and human systems evolve and interact.
Here are a couple salient portions of our IRS application to put your mind at ease. :^)
> In limited circumstances, the Foundation may make grants to organizations that are not described in IRC Section 501(c)(3), or to individual OSS developers, maintainers, researchers, and educators. These grants will support persons and organizations engaged in developing, maintaining, securing, documenting, or conducting research on free and open source software critical to public digital infrastructure.
> Any such grants will be made exclusively for charitable or educational purposes, with the Foundation retaining complete discretion and control over the use of funds consistent with Revenue Ruling 68-489.
[...]
> In addition to project-based grants, the Foundation will make recognition awards to individuals who have made extraordinary contributions to OSS serving as critical public digital infrastructure. These awards are analogous in structure and purpose to MacArthur Fellowships, the National Medal of Science, Pulitzer Prizes, and similar recognition programs administered by 501(c)(3) organizations.
Boldly asserting that all grants will be made exclusively for charitable or educational purposes does nothing to change the character of the grant. If you're giving money to someone for commercial product development then you're giving money to someone for commercial product development ... and if that constitutes the majority of what you do then you've got a major problem.
OSE won't give money for commercial product development - it is dedicated to supporting existing highly-used _nonprofit_ and independent OSS. Some specific examples are at https://endowment.dev/faq/#grants
As soon as you start paying individual maintainers, it stops being nonprofit OSS they work on. If you direct your funds to other charities, you're only shifting the tax issue to them. If you want to give money to maintainers with no strings attached, it's basically impossible to avoid double taxation.
We explicitly explained to the IRS that our endowment plans to make awards and grants to individual OSS developers and maintainers in the US and other eligible countries. Given our limited target scope — not just any software, but critical nonprofit independent OSS — it was acceptable, and the IRS approved our 501(c)(3) status. And we plan to operate within what is described in our application.
reply