The German passport allows services to verify age through you NFC reading your passport on your phone and confirmation of validity through intermediates state service. All they see is a confirmation of age requirement met. No name, no age, no address, no face.
Some other countries have similar systems. It's already a EU directive to be implemented on a broader European level.
Most projects don't have enough people or external interest for that kind of process.
It would be possible to establish some tooling like that, but standard forges don't provide that. So it'd feel cumbersome.
And in the end you're back at having contributors, trustworthiness, and quality control. Because testing and reviewing are contributions too. You don't want just a popularity contest (I want this) nor blindly trust unknown contribute.
Mostly because of the continuous attempts to force Copilot usage for our repositories,
It seems to be about GitHub pushing copilot usage, not them training on data. Moving away doesn't prevent training anyway. And I'm sure someone will host a mirror on hitting if they don't.
Or maybe the bubble will pop, and we’ll have a repeat of 2008, except 100 times worse.
The AI spending and stock is much more localized. It's not grown over more years and integrated into many financial systems. So the results may be much less severe.
I'm not sure feeding more misinformation to our systems and society is that good of an idea. I don't think it'd be an effective influencing strategy either.
Additionally, patentable materials must be novel, useful, and a non-obvious inventive step. - Wikipedia
What does the patent contain? Where is the non-obvious inventive step? Using an AI to impersonate someone doesn't strike me as novel, inventive, or surprising.
Executives aren’t ignorant. They have the data. They commission the surveys. They attend the conferences where CTOs present their concerns. They know that:
91% of CTOs cite technical debt as the biggest challenge
75% of projects are expected to fail
69% of developers lose significant time to inefficiencies
Only 39% of projects meet success criteria
The recommended 15–20% investment in technical debt management yields better long-term returns than crisis spending
Yet they choose:
Not to allocate recommended budgets for technical debt management
Not to make quality a strategic priority despite CTOs’ and developers’ concerns
Not to mention these challenges in public communications to shareholders
To celebrate AI productivity gains whilst developers report record inefficiency
To focus on the next hype cycle (AI) rather than address fundamental problems
This isn’t a failure of knowledge. It looks to me like a failure of courage and integrity. A failure of the very concept of leadership.
It always feels great seeing Mumble mentioned, especially with such a positive sentiment. I was a core dev, or am but have been mostly inactive for a long time now.
Discord with millions in funding and a dev team - Mumble with contributors you can count on one hand obviously can't keep up. If a community wants text messaging, that's just not Mumble's target of primarily voice communication. Whether that's because of limited resources/people or a deliberate target scoping.
My clan briefly switched from Mumble to Teamspeak for a while. I was happy to see that the majority preferred Mumble and we moved back to Mumble back then. That was still before Discord was a thing.
Being embedded in a society formed by politics, they become beneficiary and victim to what others decide.
I can empathize and understand why one would be apolitical. Some things need activism and political involvement, though. Investing the minimum is not that hard - if you at least know your sources. If they're aware of being a beneficiary and there's no immediate need for activism, I'm find with their political decision to be apolitical. If they ignore (glaring) issues, I may be a bit disappointed or sad.
I'm not sure if you expanded over broader society, but people of public institutions not making (public/visible) political remarks has good reasons: As representatives of the public institutions which are supposed to serve all citizens it's important they are seen and trusted to be neutral and serving the state, the public, everyone.
If public servants talk one way or the other, others may lose trust.
Obviously, right now people are losing trust, and for good reasons, for other reasons and prevalence.
There's plenty of research on wolves, their disappearance/eradication, and (incentivised, supported) reintroduction to Europe.
I find this symbolism stupid. Wolves aren't exactly well known to attack doors.
They were talking about sheep becoming wolves, not wolves going hungry. Wolves will be wolves. A UBI won't change that.