The title reads like they’re attacking revanced. Based on the DMCA request, they’re claiming (with proof) that revanced is copying their code into the revanced repository without attribution to them, which is illegal under the gpl3 license the projects are under. Their request is to either provide user facing attribution, or remove their code.
I don’t use either project and didn’t follow the drama, but it seems like a reasonable request.
That’s madness. How would you know you have done something wrong every 8 seconds if you don’t hear a weird beep? You could cross some old lines on the road without knowing, or worse - obey the speed limit on the traffic signs instead of what Google thinks it is.
I’ll also say 5 but I have my gripes with it. Mainly with the “review from any other engineer” aspect that usually comes with it… I have met so many engineers whose review seems to just depend on who created the MR, as opposed to what’s in it. When an MR with 500+ lines changed gets reviewed in about 10s after requesting it, it’s kinda obvious that the system is broken.
The people I’ve worked with who are good at their job and I’d probably be okay with them merging their changes without reviews would always ask for a review, even when it’s not mandatory or enforced. And their MR would already have comments by themselves around bits I might have a question around, and they’d even come with prompts of what they want input on. Whereas the people I wish wouldn’t even be allowed to approve anything would usually ask for an approval instead (even the wording seems telling). Sadly, often these 2 groups will have the same job title and HR will dictate that they should have the same permissions and say in things, which is what usually breaks the system IMO.
And lastly, the amount of people who seem to treat reviews as currency/favours and just rubber stamp each others MRs without looking…sigh.
I don’t follow your reasoning, you support the current laws enacted by the government in this area (age verification, proposing ban from social media) but you end your comment saying you disagree with the government nannying kids as they do a poor job of it. Those seem contradictory?
Also, you don’t need a VPN to get around the current set of age verification crap. All you need to do is to look at smaller providers, which the government ignored because it’s unfeasible to regulate them. Or providers from different countries who just straight up don’t care. It’s not even hard to find these, pretty much just page 2 of Google.
The point being, any of these laws are unenforceable in reality. Preventing access to porn is not feasible in today’s world. It was not feasible 30 years ago when the internet barely existed, except then yes it was magazines (and porn was still popular then because sex has always been popular in the history of humanity). In today’s world if it came down to it I imagine it’d be SD cards or usb sticks. You seem to imagine it like walking into a store, in reality it’d be the 1 kid who got his older brother to download him porn and then sells it in school to his classmates for a few quid.
These existed for pirated movies and games ages ago when access to them was harder. There is no need for this today because it’s easier to get it from the internet. If the government magically managed to change that (which is doubtful), these would just re-appear because there’d be money to make. Same story as drugs.
Regarding your last point, you phrased it like you were disagreeing with what I said, but basically just suggested the same but with concrete examples (re: better support for parents and the education system). I’m not sure what to make of that.
There is no way the kids who grew up with technology in their lives from the start won’t find ways to work around it, especially when pitted against the people coming up with these legislations who struggle to understand the basics of technology.
Even if kids were to be completely banned from the internet and it somehow magically was enforceable, they’d just end up buying physical porn.
If they actually wanted improvement, they’d fund support for parents and the educational system so kids grow up in environments that teach them good values and feel safe in. But instead, we get this meaningless duct tape that’ll still probably cost a fortune for us, and will be unenforceable for anything but the biggest porn providers/distributors.
Yes. I have tried various agents over the last ~1.5 years on multiple occasions on a bunch of different kinds of engineering type tasks. So far there has been a total of 1 time where the output was reasonable enough that I could build on it and not feel ashamed of the result (and that time probably saved me like half an hour). All other times, I wasted a bunch of time debugging crap and then just wrote the thing from scratch myself.
The closest I’ve come to somewhat consistent success with them is when I struggled to come up with a good search query for an issue I was having and after asking a longer prompt to an LLM it either gave me a close enough answer that I could figure it out from there, or the answer included some keywords that helped me come up with a query that got the results I needed.
By and large, I consider them crap for anything beyond the basics. On the other hand, I absolutely understand why they may look great in cases where the person using them doesn’t have an idea of what the output should look like. They’re a minimal productivity boost at best, at an insane cost.
Honestly McDonald’s is one of the worst foods you can eat and there are few places in the UK you can’t order it, so as far as making the food options worse for kids… eh I don’t see it either.
Some of the arguments are good in the article, e.g. the places where there are multiple dark kitchens sharing the same place and equipment, ensuring allergy requirements are followed for each seems hard.
That being said there is actually an issue with them which is not really mentioned (and it’s as much an issue with the delivery apps). They can be listed as available without a food safety certification. It shows in most of the apps, but it’s only if you actually look for it really. It makes it so easy to just create a new digital storefront and sell crap. Maybe your reviews bomb in 3-4 weeks enough that people stop ordering, but hey just make a new one from the same place and you’re back in business.
I’ve found these places can be rather annoying in smaller towns (I live in one now), but not really a big deal in cities cuz there are so many options there. There are about 4 “different” burger places here on the apps that are the same place (same items on the menu but different names, same pictures even, same address listed, very similar prices) and it’s inedible - there’s a separate group of 3-4 for Mexican food, same situation. They did pretty much what I described above, one showed up, it was shit, lasted a few months and it’s now at 3 stars or similar then another “new” one showed up and followed the same path and so on. It’s too easy to sign up as a “restaurant”.
It also makes it kind of an exercise to order from a new place and have to investigate if it’s gonna be just the same garbage or if it’s a genuine new place.
I think the solution would be forcing the apps the confirm a food certification with a business name matching it before allowing them to sell food. It’d help with the renaming, and also with the food safety concerns.
Luckily, the focus is on the important things. The government doesn’t have the resources to help the people who can’t afford to eat, when there are such problems still around as kids using social media.
Somehow food and shelter doesn’t seem to make it into the “protect the kids” bills they push…
/s, just in case
They absolutely were, without them there’s no rhetoric of “oh the other right wing party left us without money so we need to raise taxes to pay back debts”, they’re then also free to do all the unpopular shit to make sure they’re not re-elected and there’s money again to steal. It’s a back and forth team effort.
Sure, but they have reported that the child is capable of making their own decisions and fully understand the consequences:
A report submitted to Lady Tait assessed the child as having “capacity” and having a full understanding of the implications of her decision.
So it seems they assessed it, found that the child can make the decision, then made the decision themselves instead.
The point I made is that for them to decide about this case the outcome of the assessment should have been something more like “established that the child is not developed/mature/whatever enough to make a decision that can potentially end their lives until they reach 18y of age” or “the child has been exposed to harmful religious propaganda for years…” instead. Basically, anything that’d clarify the reason and criteria that enables them to make this decision on the child’s behalf against their wishes (even if they are illogical).
Worrying when they start making the decisions you don’t agree with sounds like worrying once the milk is already spilled, especially when precedents are a thing. They are a lot easier to make than overturn.
I disagree with this being a “slippery slope fallacy”, I think there is already something wrong here even if the outcome is still agreeable, hence my conflict.
I find it difficult to tell how I feel about this. On the one hand it seems in this case the health board is trying to ensure the child survives the operation while trying to honour their wish to avoid the transfusion unless it’s clearly necessary, which all sounds good. I also recognise that the reason the child is refusing it is due to religion which they probably had no choice but to be indoctrinated in from birth.
On the other hand, all parties recognise that the child is capable of making their own decision and understand the consequences, but yet still gets ignored. This seems like a slippery slope. Where is the line when the court can decide what happens to someone’s body against their will? I could understand it if they also claim the person is unable to make the choice for themselves (e.g. too young to understand the consequences, or under the influence of propaganda), but they are not claiming that.
This is true but there is a matter of being able to split up work into multiple pieces easily and prioritise between services. E.g. the piece of legacy service that nobody likes to touch, has no tests and is used for 2% of traffic can take its’ time getting sorted out without blocking all the other services moving on.
You still have to do it and it should be ASAP, but there are more options on how to manage it.
Nah, we just let half the country flood once a year instead.
Luckily they can just keep proposing it nonstop until everyone is burnt out from constantly fighting it while also working a day job.
I’m just so tired of paying taxes and then having to spend more money to support various organisations to fight the government using my money against me. Even sending representatives emails about these issues just feels like spending 5-10 mins of my time to write it, then paying for 5 mins of their time to get back a long version of “yea sure”. I might as well just start setting money on fire instead, same outcome less effort.
It seems once again parents who don’t supervise their kids ruin it for all other families.