Which is an argument for e-mails, really. It's sitting there waiting for them to need the information, and they can just refer to it at that point if they need to. I have little sympathy for the position of "But I don't want to do my job...".

And their inability or unwillingness to do their job is my problem... how again?

I found it saves a lot of time for everyone if I refuse to indulge the person who didn't read the e-mail and proceed with everyone else's questions, or if it's wide-spread enough just reschedule the meeting to give everyone more time and call it there.

The first thing to do is ask "Does this need to be a meeting?". If all you're doing is disseminating information, it doesn't. Send the information in an email instead. If you expect questions, send it in an email and have people ask their questions via an email thread. If you start getting debate on a question, then you need to schedule a meeting or take it to real-time chat. If you want feedback and expect debate on changes, send it in an email and schedule a meeting later to give people enough time to understand the information and get their feedback ready.

TBH I think any meeting that has a detailed agenda doesn't need to start as a meeting. My experience is that the productive meetings always involve a starting point so nebulous that the whole point will be to throw ideas at each other and work out what we're actually doing.

Looked up details on the wording, and it may not be just a logistical nightmare but a legal impossibility. The law appears to only apply to specific platforms, and no Mastodon servers appear on the list. New instances wouldn't either, so there'd be no legal basis for trying to force them to ban teens.

I bet a large enough number of those kids know enough to know about Fediverse-based services like Mastodon to start spreading the word. Instead of a dozen large social media platforms, the government will be faced with thousands of bulletin-board-sized "services" networked together into a platform that has no single place you can go to deactivate accounts. Controlling that would be a logistical nightmare.

Most consumers today aren't using IPv4 by choice, but by necessity. Every OS out there supports IPv6, as does every router made in the last 10 years, and supports it pretty much automatically if it's available. The main reason they still use IPv4 is that their ISP hasn't deployed IPv6 support on their residential network, so IPv6 isn't available unless you're a techie and recognize the name Hurricane Electric. The next most common reason is that the site they're accessing only has IPv4 addresses assigned so connections are automatically done via IPv4. Consumers have control over neither of those reasons.

...who for some reason deserve to be protected from automation more than fucking literally everybody else, apparently.

This sort of attack is inevitable when you have open-access software repositories. If anybody can upload a package, that implies any bad guy can upload a package. So:

• Ask yourself if you really need a package for this, or is it simple or straightforward enough you can code it yourself and avoid the dependency and the associated supply-chain risks.
• Do your research. Don't just grab the first package that looks like it fits your needs. Review all of the results, then look at who published them and look them up on the web. Look at their web site. Look at what other packages they've published. Look at how active they are aside from the package you're looking at. Toss any that have red flags like no history aside from this package.
• Validate your packages. Authors often sign packages. If they do, get their keys and enable validation so you only accept packages signed by the author you know. That way if a package gets hijacked it'll fail the signature check.

One would think the third-party doctrine would pretty much scuttle OpenAI's objections.

If a store does this and they give you any guff at all about being let out you pull out your phone, call 911 and report a kidnapping in progress. Because that's what it is. The store's within it's rights to deny you entrance, but to deny you exit they have to have reason to believe you've broken the law in some way. You haven't. Their policy isn't the law. Let the authorities explain this to them.

I think the backdoor isn't Chinese in the sense of the government or the country, it's more of a vendor problem globally. Vendors do this to keep control of what they sell, to be able to force customers to buy support subscriptions on pain of having the product stop working if they don't. Vendors from countries other than China do this just as often. We should be worried about what all vendors do, not just Chinese vendors.

Bypass the Senate. The law regarding DST requires Federal law to make DST permanent, but doesn't require any special law for states to eliminate DST entirely and go on Standard Time year-round. Cotton can't do a thing about that, and maybe he'll develop some sense when the choice is between Standard and DST year-round rather than DST year-round vs. only in the summer.

I don't think genAI is a threat to the open-source ecosystem as far as it's copying of FOSS code goes. The people looking for that kind of code wouldn't be looking for the source code for FOSS projects anyway. The threat, if any, will be from genAI code being contributed back to FOSS projects. Aside from provenance issues, it tends to be low-quality and buggy and will just increase the workload for FOSS maintainers without offering anything useful. Witness genAI offering a suggestion to a bugfix submission: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsocial.hails.org%2F%40hail...

Thanks to Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1 (2021), even relatively small pieces of code (such as function declarations in header files) must be considered copyrightable. It's possible they aren't, but the appeals in that case resulted in rulings that they were copyrightable, and the SC decision in favor of Google turned on fair use, not whether the code in question was copyrighted or not, so it can't really be used to stand for the proposition that the appeals courts got it wrong.

With AI-generated snippets, it's going to turn on whether the snippet is close enough to identical to the original code to be considered a copy and whether that copying could constitute fair use. I think any lawyer would tell you that's not the kind of thing you want to bet on in court. If the code's simple enough that it clearly wouldn't be a copyright violation even if it were nigh-identical, it's simple enough you're better off not using AI and having your engineers write the code themselves, and if it's significant enough that that's not feasible then it's almost certainly copyrightable and the fair-use argument is going to be an uphill battle for something that significant. Either way, you're better off avoiding anything where you don't know the provenance of every line of your code.

AI doesn't "siphon up and launder" code any more than your brain does. Both *can* memorize (which is why sometimes comedians can accidentally steal a joke), but both are also learning from patterns.

AI isn't going to make people stop contributing to open source.