Here's the thing, Intel loves to be the one that sets the standard. They do because it provides them with a dominant position which they can then leverage. However, in order to do that, not only do you need to have an implementation, you need a reason for developers to give a shit about your implementation. If it can't be used for multiple platforms or if it's total shit for non-Intel chips then why the fuck would any developer use it?

Here's what's more likely to happen: Intel will develop it's own partially closed source libraries that are specifically optimized to their chips and nobody will use them.

The only viable alternative (that developer will actually use) is looking at existing APIs/frameworks and submitting optimizations for Intel chips. Doing so means you will not have the dominant position and can't be used as leverage.

Honestly, they could go with the compatibility route and it would be better for more people. However, I know Intel's greed and their greed is telling them to sabotage their own efforts which means later they will be surprised when their code is largely ignored.

They are contacting their representatives and offices, not everyday people. This isn't spam.

Activism is NOT spam. Whoever wrote this is definitely putting a huge amount of spin (intentionally or not) on this story because spam has significant negative connotations.

That's quite the framing. Instead of saying what the bill does, they write what they bill hopes to accomplish without mentioning how it does it. I have looked into it but given the history of politicians, I would be this is another, "we can't let the little people have secure communications, think of the children!" campaign to restrict the use of encryption.

I am 100% on board with fighting the exploitation of children but insisting on an an Orwellian approach is the only way to do this is lazy thinking at best.

I agree because zero sum game is precisely how the economic issue of plant versus animal-based foods has been approached. Instead of promoting incentives to farmers to transition toward crop-based farming, they have instead declared that a plant-based approach will be economically harmful and thus animal-farming MUST be protected. Ecologically, animal-based foods are unsustainable. This isn't a even a hypothesis, it's a fact. As such, it's only rational that a responsible government would promote plant-based foods and provide economic incentives for farmers to transition their agricultural practices toward crops.

Please, do tell me about how societies at large are demanding that plant-based burgers not be allowed to use the term "burger". /s

And if it's not produced in Hamburg then you have to call it Sparkling Cow Meat!

This kind of sophistry demands a sophomoric response. Call them a "better-burgers" then dump tons of cow manure on the homes of the idiots who voted for this because they are clearly more interested in bullshit than things that matter like slowing down climate change.

That's precisely the part that he doesn't like!

That's just what THEY want you to think. ;)

Honestly, does anyone care? I mean, is this more or less important than a bunch of children getting shot at school? I ask because a lot of children keep getting shot at school but people don't seem to talk about it when it happens anymore.

Congrats on identifying the problem.

There's a good reason for that: Perl is a write-only language. You can't upload a malicious mod if you can't mod the code. ;)

CPAN has fewer packages and I bet the widely used ones are "finished".
package counts:
CPAN: 222,673
NPM: ~2.5 million
PyPI: 675,251

Software registries are not inherently Insecure as Debian has proven now to ensure that they are secure. However, NPM, PyPI, and Docker Hub are all absurdly insecure because they don't take security seriously like Debian.

Fuck your stupid money concerns about deluded billionaires, what about the environment? Bullshit computing because of AI uses a HUGE amount of electricity. If that were disappear then less energy would be generated. Since renewables are always generating electricity, it means that fewer fossil fuels would be burned.

I don't give a damn about people with delusions of building an AI god, I care about if people are going to die as a result of your delusions. Climate change is real, your AI gods/slaves are not.

According to the law, it is whoever is producing the infringing material. In this case OpenAI is producing the material at the direction of users which is not relevant to copyright law.