5

Worse, it's Dota 2.

Is it? After reading the article and the original post in the kernel mailing list, IMO the article depicts Linus' opinions accurately.

Was also astonished to find out that Linus considers people who advocate for sustainable tech are doing so solely out of fear and that AI can't be criticised because humans also make errors.

Reading these comments I have to contend that the halo effect is indeed powerful.

IMO it's immoral to use LLM's for any and every purpose and I think every slopper should be called out; no matter how accomplished they are.

Perfect is the enemy of good. Just because every consumption choice cannot be ethical, doesn't mean none of them should be.

I am condemning Linus and others like him because the choice to not use LLMs isn't a difficult one to make. You only lose a little comfort. So when you choose to trade everything shitty that LLM usage necessitates for a little comfort, just as Linus likes to say, you can go fuck yourself.

EDIT: Grammar

Are you trying to learn how this works or just need a landline?

Both. I have only one ISP which maybe offers (there is some contradictory wording on their site) landlines for consumers. And they charge outrageous prices for a service which would be used at most once a day for a couple of minutes.

But if you say it's tough to pull of for a noobie then I'll look for other solutions.

After reading other comments I see now how the author's stance was ignorant. But what context should I have added? That I am not the author?

Although I'm not really new to Lemmy in general, making posts is a new one for me but I am willing to learn how to make better posts.

Trying to replace an overpriced legacy service for my family, because my ISP charges an arm and a leg for a landline subscription which gets used at most once a day (oftentimes even less). So ideally a handset device capable of recieving and making calls to a limited number of devices.

Thanks for the constructive feedback! I'll add the context ASAP.

But I don't want to tell people how to think. IMO people should form their own (educated) opinions. I know this community has a heavy bias and I respect that, but can't I just post new opinions so we can have a discussion around that (and maybe even change our opinions based on the outcome of the discussion)?

In my experience not everyone is knowledgeable about everything and an open and respectful (as opposed to hostile) discussion is the way to inform new opinions. Am mistaken in thinking my approach should be tolerated in this community?

This is it! Why didnt't I think of that... Thank you!

Contractual obligations cannot override laws does not mean the law is not legally binding.

I think this is the one time I can pull out my fancy word knowledge and say: this is a non sequitur.

Also my original comment intended to point out the flaw in the above commenters argument (which argued that you can sue games companies that sell you digital games and then revoke licenses).

Other than that, I agree with you.

If you had read the blog post, you would know that the author is criticising the communication and the methods Codeberg took to combat the harms of slopware, not the general structure or the power that Codeberg holds over its platform.

Firstly, why the hostility? Neither myself nor the author of the blog are advocating pro-slop positions.

Secondly, it isn't false as Codeberg doesn't give it's users voting powers. It gives voting powers to active members. How would a user supposed to have known to register as an active member to vote on a topic impacting them that wasn't covered by the TOS beforehand? If you follow the tech news on the fediverse then sure. But that isn't a necessary requirement to host a Codeberg repo. Can you really confidently claim that everything was communicated perfectly regarding this ban?

I don't think you know what legally binding means. By your definition laws are also not legally binding because they can't make you do anything; they can only tell you what will happen if you break them.

You're right in that no contractual obligation can override your rights (and their obligations). Nevertheless the breadth of the things to which you can give consent to (often unknowingly) is wild.