why would it be normal? the code is there for you to look at and use or not. It is open-source, licensed as open source and is very clear about that. Why would you feel that the author(s) should need to specify anything else at all to satisfy your curiosity?
> the code is there for you to look at and use or not
Perhaps this is a matter of different perspectives? Every tool I use is an investment for me, it might be light if I only use it once, it might be heavy if I use it for years. That investment is all the time I take to learn the various concepts involved and how to think about problems to fit the tool. But it is also all the time needed to constantly keep in mind if that tool is affected by the latest security vulnerability, how changing trends in the industry affects my use of the tool, and what to do if the tool becomes abandonware.
Reading code is hard. Writing can sometimes even be faster than reading, especially when there are many unknowns involved. So saying "you can just read it" doesn't really work for me. There's no "just" in reading. Taking in new tools is an investment, a burden, and I am perfectly entitled to avoid tools where that burden is harder than the expected outcome. It's impossible to know for sure, of course, but you can often guess pretty good very early.
because it matters.
Why would you intentionally choose to ignore that fact if it was provided?
I have been using LLMs since August last year, and I know the output they can produce. And I know that the initial output requires refinement in most cases.
And that's coming from someone experienced in Software development.
LLMs in the hands of people who are not experienced lead to skip a proper review process.
Additionally, it's unreasonable to assume one can take a large codebase and will spend hours on examining the code before. It's not only unreasonable but downright ridiculous.
LLMs are a part of reality right now and they're not going away.
Code should be labeled as such.
Not doing that is inconsiderate.
Should we label code written by humans who don’t know what they’re doing?
> it's unreasonable to assume one can take a large codebase and will spend hours on examining the code before.
This seems to be an issue with your security posture that exists regardless of how the software was written. Do you think malicious or broken software was invented with the advent of LLMs?
People and organizations serious about security absolutely do evaluate unknown software before use. You don’t have to read the code, there are many other ways to evaluate software depending on your risk profile.
There's a Kroger grocery store near my house. It's very convenient -- I'm near it almost every day I'm alive. They have all kinds of things there, including factory-made bread and factory-made eggs.
There's also a tiny little Amish bakery that I know of. They make all kinds of things there, but the most interesting to me are the loaves of plain white bread that they bake every day (except Sunday) in their wood-fired oven. It is not near to me and is also off the beaten path a good bit, but I try to make a point to go there when I'm in the area. I usually just get a loaf of that plain white bread along with a dozen eggs from the chickens that they have roaming around outside eating bugs.
I wouldn't call any aspect of it artisanal or anything like that, but it's definitely not made by machines.
And for reasons I can't really rationalize or explain, I enjoy having things from the Amish bakery in my kitchen more than I do the superficially similar things that I get from Kroger.
And yet: I usually eat the factory stuff from Kroger. On a strictly functional basis it's about the same to me.
---
Anyway: Software. Did a bot write it? Did a person? Was it a combined effort? Does it even matter?
I can accept that folks might prefer to have software in their library that is written by people. My acceptance of this does not require them to rationalize their preference, or for me to agree with it or even understand it.
It's fine when someone cares about that kind of thing. And it's fine if they don't care, too.
We're allowed to like what we like. It's good to have options, and it's OK to prefer one way over another.
> Does not specify if it's vibe coded or not, which I think should be normal practice now
I am trying to say that when people freely share software with the world, I do not think you are entitled to try to add conditions. People are free to share whatever they like, in the conditions they like - in this case the MIT license. Everybody else is free to take the code AS IS.
There is a difference between a commercial transaction and software which is shared without any expectations in return. With software shared without any expectations in return. I don’t believe that we should be trying to create normal practices on top of existing licences or trying to specify under what conditions somebody can share something
> It's fine when someone cares about that kind of thing. And it's fine if they don't care, too.
> We're allowed to like what we like. It's good to have options, and it's OK to prefer one way over another.
I agree and never said anything different, but if somebody wants to share under different conditions, then their conditions will always trump yours
If it's free (libre) software, then it is shared freely. Others are free to take and use it. They can also change it; they don't have to accept it as it is. The existing code can be molded to be something different, or the ideas copied and used in some new implementation.
We're free to hype it up and become huge supporters. We're free to be critical and dismissive of of it. We're free talk about these things.
We're even free to leave the software where it is and walk away from it while bitching and moaning the entire time we do so.
People aren't beholden to the author, and the author isn't beholden to the end-user. We're all mutually free of those kinds of chains.
> Does not specify if it's vibe coded or not, which I think should be normal practice now
That's just a preferential statement wrapped up in a critical package. It could be stated with a greater abundance of tact, but it's no better nor worse than stating "Doesn't have a GPL-compatible license, which I think should be normal practice now".
But the things from that bakery are made as the product of a soulless megacorp. The process may occur in-store, but it is prescribed from on-high, not invented or tweaked locally. And bread from the Kroger bakery costs more to buy than bread from this Amish bakery does.
So for those reasons, and some others that I could probably never properly articulate, having bread from the Kroger bakery in my kitchen does not enhance my joy. It instead diminishes it.
Personal preferences can be weird. In this instance, I prefer to actively avoid things from the Kroger bakery.
why? jsx is a great language for templating, the ui being a function of state is an incredible model. i am not a huge nextjs fan but React, mdx and friends are great for pre-rendered static content
Isn’t all templates language that way (blade, jade,…)? The main selling point of JSX is being a DSL for React, which present a functional model instead of the imperative paradigm of the DOM API.
“Costs” often ignore externalities like environmental damage and inequality. Landfilling or dumping plastic may be cheaper now, but it shifts the true cost — centuries of pollution —onto vulnerable communities today. There is a reason the clothing dumps are in Ghana and Chile, rather than wealthier nations like the US or Germany.
If the price to companies profiting from plastics included exteralities I could possibly agree with you but as it stands these costs are normally paid by disadvantaged individuals or marginalized ecosystems.
The reason the clothing dumps exist is greenwashing. If we weren't pretending that reusing clothing is meaningful to the environment, we'd just burn the clothing locally.
You'd think that cotton could be upcycled - the Soviet Union notably upcycled cotton, by turning it into the duraplast (made of compressed heated old cotton and plastic resin) that made up the body panels of their Trabant cars.
Of course, the Soviet Union doing something doesn't automatically mean it's economical or sensible, but at least in premise it should be useful for something.
Honestly, everyone can do what they want with their money but working in tech and being on a site like this and seeing this comment makes me really sad
We all want cool things, secure, where our data is protected and we are not the product, but 3 euros a month is too much?
No wonder big tech gets bigger and the rich get richer. The silicon valley VC funded feifdoms become more entrenched and, in the end, we all suffer for it
There are much cheaper alternatives to Ente. Filen.io, which is also E2E encrypted, for example costs 200 GB montly for 1.99 Euro. Its difficult to compete with iCloud if your service costs three times as much.
Filen is perhaps cheaper because they are storing lesser replicas. It is not financially feasible to provide 3 replicas at their price points, unless they're running their own storage infrastructure, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Now Ente could of course choose to keep lesser replicas and offer "lite" plans that are more affordable. But we would rather not complicate our pricing structure right now. Understanding buckets of GBs is hard enough, and adding tiers on top would worsen the experience for most.
All of that said, Filen does seem like a really cool project for storing files.
using Kagi is pretty clumsy. We iOS users get to pick from a pretty limited list. In reality we should be able to set search to any endpiont that handles the ‘q’ param
I don't have a strong opinion about sideloading applications.
What I'm more concerned about is Apple being forced to allow non-WebKit browsers in the App Store.
Apple requiring the use of WebKit on iOS is the only thing stopping Chrome from having a complete monopoly, aside from Firefox with its 5% marketshare.
No amount of repetition is going to convince such people. Their entire argument is predicated on an absolutely erroneous belief that sideloading or user modifications will somehow ruin the experience of people who don’t wish to modify their phone knowing fully well that more setting for users won’t diminish the experience for other users. They’re literally playing stupid to defend a corporation and its practices.
Indeed, maddening, especially as the wonderful https://mediasoup.org/ is developed here. Europe will never have great tech companies when the answer seems to be throwing €€€ away instead of investing locally
Maybe watching ads would be a fair exchange if there was an option to pay, often (mostly), there isn’t. Additionally to some (most), ads aren’t the problem, its tracking, creation of shadow profiles etc
Never used photopea, hope it works out for you, but I wish website creators stopped thinking that invasion of my privacy is a currency
It doesn't work very well, unfortunately. Those willing to pay usually are the most interesting part of the audience for ad providers, so it's difficult to compensate that loss by a reasonably priced 'ad-free' option. You probably would be surprised if you knew how much your attention may cost. Targeted ads created a market where everyone pays proportionally to their spendings. I'm not saying it's a good situation, but it looks like that's a local optimum rather hard to leave.
What bothers me is that huge companies are more resilient to tracking and ads restrictions, so that fight may further speed up centralisation of the internet. I would personally prefer the chaotic old-school world wide web with ugly flashing banners instead.
Photopea.com has an option to pay for an ad-free experience, and one in 2000 users is paying for it.
I make around $.01 (one USD cent) for an hour of using Photopea with ads. If someone was willing to pay me two cents for an hour of using Photopea (with no ads), I would gladly accept it.
reply