oh hah I have not :)

lol seems like it

lol I just found it, I have no idea what was used to make it, why does it matter even?

somebody fainted while Trump was doing a presser

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.

😱

the way things are going Europeans are gonna have to start fleeing to China to get a semblance of free speech 🤣

usually having coupling with the database being used as shared state

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.

What I’m saying is that you could make an architecture similar to M1 which would have the same benefits of being fast and energy efficient, and slap a tailored Linux distro on top of it that just work out of the box. As a dev, I’d buy a decently built laptop like that in a second.

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.

I’m really amazed that it’s been half a decade now and nobody has made a comparable SoC using ARM or RISCV tailored to Linux.

Completely agree, MacOS is turning into a dumpster fire. They keep adding features nobody asked for, and making the whole thing more bloated and flaky in the process.

MS ended support for it, so it won’t get security updates or fixes going forward.

Big corps never really wanted people to be able to run their own software and have control over their devices. What they want is to sell appliances as opposed to general purpose computing devices.