So the issue you have is with the wording, not the sentiment ?

Then let’s get those words in a form you’ll understand.

“so many other good tools out there that don’t actively and routinely introduce “features” and “options” that increase the potential surface area for attacks and bugs, often to introduce anti-consumer functionality to the detriment of user experience.”

To avoid confusion, i’m talking about Microsoft as a whole, their ecosystem in general and the list of easily findable examples of them doing sketchy shit to push ads, data collection and other anti-consumer nonsense.

The only correct amount of ram is the amount that covers your work load. Full stop.

Incorrect, as you immediately point out in the second half of the sentence.

Yes windows could use less ideally.

The correct amount of RAM is the amount that covers your workload and the baseline overhead of supporting components, in this case, an OS.

As a general rule, windows uses significantly more RAM for baseline.

But we can’t keep pretending that 8 gigs of ram is remotely fucking acceptable for ever.

Agreed, but we can push back on them pretending that it has nothing to do with their (subjectively shitty) choices.

The rest of your reply aside, I do disagree with one point in particular.

Where is your linkedin or github profile showing projects before ~2022?

A github public profile and linkedin history are not reliable indicators of comparative programming competence.

I.e it’s entirely possible to be a competent programmer and also not want to participate in self marketing or promotion.

They are sometimes indicative of the soft skills that go along with being a programmer.

It isn’t and this is the one of many replies in which you haven’t provided even a single example.

This is because you can’t provide something that doesn’t exist.

Even if your reading comprehension was at such a level as to genuinely think there was an example of what you are saying in that text, you’d provide it.

I can’t see a scenario where you aren’t trolling for engagement.

I expect some personal attacks, continued feigned ignorance, perhaps some bargain basement deflection , all very standard and boring and that’s OK, if that’s your skill ceiling i won’t hold it against you.

But… i’m willing to be surprised if you have something novel, perhaps some obscure fallacy I’ll have to look up, something that sets you apart from the basement dweller trolls, something noteworthy, perhaps enough to get you elevated to troll management?

You got this, i believe in you.

Also, i’ll save you some time , a reply that doesn’t contain a quotable example of what you’ve claimed will just be ignored, no more engagement for you.

citation?

A single example is fine, i can’t find any, but perhaps i’m missing something important.

Cauterisation with extremely hot metal works to seal a wound (and as far as upfront costs go, is cheaper).

Doesn’t mean modern medical care isn’t the preference.

TL;DR;

Sounds like a bunch of organisational issues using licensing as a scapegoat.

Again, not giving an opinion on FOSS licencing pro’s and cons, just on the implementation of licensing in general.

My issue with viral licensing is that it means you got to rewrite the code or use another product.

Or…comply with the licence.

but yes, that’s entirely the intention of a licence.

You can use this thing as long as you adhere to the rules set forth, if you don’t want to then feel free to create your own or find something with a licence more to your liking.

They aren’t forcing this on you, using these products is optional.

Also software bom is a hassle.

Absolutely.

However, that feels more like a procurement/evaluation issue.

e.g : “is bringing in this open source, viral GPL audio processing library worth the trade-off of dealing with the compliance vs paying money for a similar commercial product (or building our own)”

Some advanced manufacturing techniques rely on advanced software. So does infrastructure which is often only secured by obscurity. Also all software is filled with vulnerabilities which can get easier to exploit if you have access to the source code.

That sounds again like a person or persons have royally fucked up their evaluation/procurement duties when selecting the components to use in the building of the product a, quality/security/systems design issue rather than a licensing one.

if complying with an open source license causes a product to become a danger to the public, many people, at many stages, have utterly failed to do their job.

Also,i’m sure you know this, but security through obscurity is a poor systems design choice in almost all scenarios.

As you say though, it does happen in the real world.

In those cases someone needs to wear the grown up hat and evaluate the options available, such as removing or replacing the component that requires opening up your source code, or evaluating the trade off of how severe a risk opening up the source code is vs the costs involved in replacing it, or even the potential legal liability of just ignoring the licence.

If you can’t afford any options then your product isn’t viable ( in an “everybody follows the rules” kind of scenario, at least).

Im not expressing an opinion on the viral nature of the licence itself, nor the pros and cons of FOSS, nor am I a FOSS evangelist of any kind.

But you understand it’s optional right? if you don’t like it, don’t use it.

This isn’t some gotcha, you can literally decide not to use the thing under the licence you don’t like. That will solve 100% of the problems you are describing (though it sounds like it’d introduce new, non-licence based problems in whatever example you are thinking of)

Well… I say that, but im actually not sure what you mean by “dangerous to the public”, if you could go in to a bit more detail about what you mean there, I’d appreciate it

I see what you mean and for jobs where deceit isn’t an asset it’s probably not a great idea to get caught lying.

I will say though, having been employed, the ability to “gracefully massage” the truth is an invaluable skill in a lot of workplaces.

Cheating is absolutely a sellable skill.

i’m of the opinion that if someone has done their best* ^[1] to consider the consequences of an approach and chooses to take that approach while accepting the potential outcomes, then that is an acceptable decision making process.

In some cases escalation might be a potential outcome and as long as the person understands that, then them choosing that option is their considered choice.

In the same way that freedom of speech* ^[2] isn’t freedom from consequences, freedom of choice isn’t freedom from other peoples choosing to act against you.

If you want to make what seems like a poor choice from my point of view, i might advise against it, but ultimately it’s up to you.

However, i’m also free to try and stop you if that’s what i choose. In this case i’m not looking to curtail your choices, but i am pitting my choice against yours.

The difference is in the potential for creep.

The proposed implementation would actually be less invasive than a national ID card (assuming the implementation information provided is complete and accurate), but also usable in less scenarios.

AFAICT there is no provision for actually verifying the person using the app is the person who’s identity is verified in the app.

What’s to stop one person having a verified identity and just sharing it with the people around them once it’s been issued ?

As an example, with an ID card in a bar you need to match the photo, this digital system would be like turning up to a bar with an ID that had no picture or details on , but just said “over 18”, you could then hand this to a friend and they could also use it.

I personally think that if a system is mandatory then an easily circumventable verification system is the best choice , but such an easily circumventable system is exactly the kind of thing governments have used as an excuse to push for further encroachment.

Take the UK for example, the online safety act they have is easily circumvented with a VPN (which many people noted before it was implemented) the government basically stuck their head in the sand and claimed vpn’s weren’t widespread enough to be a problem.

Skip to now and they’ve got representatives looking to force vpn compliance with the online safety act without having the slightest clue about why that wouldn’t and can’t work the way they want.

A more suspicious person might suspect the attack on vpn usage was an expected part of the overall plan.

Even a less suspicious person could still see the direct line from one to the other.

I’m not saying they will, but if i were a betting person, I’d certainly put some money on it.

see my reply here

Yes, i get that, copilot is like opencode or cursor, though perhaps with less general access to models.

There was a reply

Copilot? You mean the AI with terms of service that are in bold and explicit: “for entertainment purposes only”?

followed by

I suppose GitHub Copilot is meant, which is a different thing.

i was asking why github copilot is different in that context.

There are many such projects that have done similar things that aren’t getting the attention this one has.

The reason this one it getting the attention it is, is because of the replies and behaviour of the dev.

Ok, so there are 70-81 copilots, github is one of them.

Why is github copilot a different thing in the context of the reply that was being responded to ?

Different how, isn’t github owned by microsoft ?

If you’re stuck at review you aren’t seeing 10x development, you’re seeing 10x code generation.

This is especially important because without the review/test/deploy part of the pipeline you aren’t actually seeing any progress towards business goals.

Once you do get these parts sorted, you can then look at what multiplier you’re seeing.

That’s not to say there isn’t an improvement in your workflow, just that you can’t say with any certainty what kind of improvement without measuring the end to end.

It might turn out that the rest of the pipeline is way easier , in which case your multiplier will be higher, it might also be much harder, in which case the multiplier will be lower.

I’m not taking shots, i mean it seriously, especially if you need to report any of this to the rest of the business.

edit : In addition, if it turns out that review is going to be a bottleneck you can get extra resource pointed in that direction which will benefit the workflow overall.

another edit: i would consider correctly managing the expectations of those you report to as a vital skill.