not a chance in hell

That is one of very clear legitimate uses for LLMs, similarly they work great for making decompiled code human readable now.

the really scary part is that this doesn’t even surprise me

I remember a long time ago, I worked at a java shop and we were cursed to use Eclipse. One coworker was saying his IDE was really slow, and almost unusable. So I come over to look, and the whole freaking codebase was just one giant Java file. It was basically at the limit of what the compiler will allow.

😱

I want to believe!

It’s so lovely to see how the mask has finally fallen off and we get to see the EU as the totalitarian regime that it really is.

You know the war is lost when the UK decides they want to talk to Russia.

I’m in my 40s and I’m really glad I got into martial arts back in my 20s and kept up with it.

usually having coupling with the database being used as shared state

🤣

It’s about as productive as trying to turn a lion vegetarian.

I’m perfectly calm and nobody is upset here. I’m simply explaining to you that your argument does not make sense. If you want to look at negative sides of the trade-off then come up with some arguments that make logical sense. It’s quite telling that you start making personal attacks when you can’t actually address the points being made.

I genuinely don’t know what you’re arguing anymore, because your logic is completely backwards. You’re blaming the GPL for “enshitification” and bloat, which is utterly nonsensical. The license has fuck all to do with how lean or bloated a piece of software is, that’s a result of developer priorities and corporate roadmaps. The GPL’s entire purpose is to enforce freedom, and a key part of that freedom is the right to fork a project and strip out the bloat yourself if the main version goes off the rails. You then admit that corporate contributions are valuable, but your proposed solution is to letting them keep their work proprietary which is the very thing that accelerates enshitification. You’re arguing that to stop companies from making software worse, we should give them a free pass to take public labor, build their own walled gardens, and contribute nothing back. That’s just corporate apologia that encourages the exact freeloading the GPL was designed to prevent. Your entire point is a self-contradictory mess.

No, GPL does not force companies to do that. It forces companies to make their source code available. There is zero requirement that it has to be contributed to the original project, nor do the maintainers of the project have to accept changes they don’t want. You’re completely misrepresenting the how GPL works here.

Centralization, bloating, and GPL are all orthogonal concepts that bear no direct relation to each other. A centralized project does not necessarily become bloated, nor does GPL play any role in whether a project is centralized or not.

GPL because abstract freedoms are meaningless. The goal should be to ensure that the code stays open and that corps aren’t freeloading of it.

Yeah, Russia should’ve just let the ethnic cleansing in Donbas continue. At lest you fascists have consistent values from Gaza to Donbas.

Frankly, I’ve never really understood the logic of bailouts. If a company is not solvent, but it’s deemed to be strategically important then the government should simply be taking a stake in it. That’s what would happen on the private markets with another company buying it out. The whole notion that the government should just throw money at the failing companies with no strings attached is beyond absurd.

ah makes sense