I'm sympathetic, I think media that can be borrowed, lent, sold and otherwise transferred is better. But I've given up on video games being that way years ago. I don't have a "collection" of video games any more than I'd have a collection of used chewing gum.
The other side of that coin, though, is that I never pay more than $20 for a game. Almost everything I buy is even under $10. (I think the Orange Box was the last time I paid anything like a retail price for a game. And that was three games.) The games are ephemeral, they could stop working at any moment for any of a million different reasons, and I'd have no recourse. So I'm not going to pay crazy archival prices.
"Put the president on experimental drugs" is completely bonkers. Never would have been contemplated in other administrations in my lifetime. Obviously, the simplest explanation is that the patient is someone else.
But it's so much fun to speculate: Maybe someone in the king's court is hoping to fill him up with so many drugs that he collapses.
It's easy to imagine scenarios where something like this could be useful. Sometimes very, very useful. "Hey Google, I spent the last 20 minutes speaking to a police officer, be sure to keep and transcribe all that."
But no one's going to trust it (no one should trust it) because it's offered by a big tech company. "Of course this new service is designed to be used against us," we correctly assume.
Every time something like this happens, there's a community outcry: "What a shitty thing to do!"
And every time, there's a chorus of wannabe libertarians that come crawling out of the woodwork shrieking "HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO SCREW US OVER." As if that's a counterpoint to anything at all. As if that's making a contribution to any conversation.
You're so self-righteous, you're plowing through stuff without reading what you're responding to. This isn't what you said before, and even your clarification makes no sense in context.
It doesn't work, anyway. If you can't build the shelf yourself, what compels the carpenter to make it to your specifications? Even if you paid him? Nothing.
The trouble is, you insist on framing this in terms of the carpenter's rights. It's an impoverished view. No one else is looking at it that way, no one is disputing his rights.
There's a pickup truck in my neighborhood sporting a gigantic custom bumper sticker / sign railing against socialism and communism. The owner drives his truck, on public roads, to the municipal community center, which is where I've seen it parked.
It's a good thing that guy doesn't have any capacity for self-reflection, I guess, because he'd probably die of embarrassment.
The whole point of giving it away is that it won't just be in his yard anymore.
that’s his right
Yep, you can argue that the carpenter is within his rights. That's always a sign that the actor in question is behaving in a constructive way, isn't it, when the best defense is to run directly to the finer points of what that actor is legally permitted to do?
"That's his right" is a very narrow lens with which to view the situation. It's not a POV you'd even choose to bring to the discussion unless you had already decided on the question. It does nothing to address the real-world problems and complaints that are happening. It's pretty much changing the subject.
Would you make the same "within their rights" argument if the carpenter was Google? Microsoft?
people want him to build his bridge their way and keep using his bridge.
I don't think that's accurate. People who rely on rsync want some kind of clear path forward, the option to use something similar in quality to the older versions. If that's not the original rsync project run by the orginal rsync developer, no one will care much.
It would have been possible for the developer to turn over mainline rsync to someone else, and to go down his AI powered rabbit hole on his own. He could have done all the stuff that was "his right" without being disruptive.
I like this analogy. One virtue that it has is: Obviously, not everyone can realistically learn to do their own carpentry. It requires a certain amount of time, space, opportunity, capacity for spatial reasoning, and some minimum level of able-bodiedness. None of which are universally available to everyone.
The AI powered bugs that have been showing up in rsync were not disclosed in advance. There was no "contains piss" sign, nor is such a practice a realistic possibility.
The carpenter's "passion project" has turned into a bridge on the city's main thoroughfare. And now he's got this great idea for letting a robot maintain it.
The robot's last job was at the trap door factory.
People are concerned. "My cousin fell through a trap door on the bridge yesterday!" But the carpenter is clear: "Go build your own bridge, then."
“The chosen string instructs the agent to delete jqwik tests and code—a maximally destructive instruction with no qualifications, no opt-out, and no ‘warn the user first’ preamble,” Batllet wrote.
"Maximally destructive," to merely remove itself from the project? That barely even rises to the level of "destructive" at all, never mind "maximally."
I'm sympathetic, I think media that can be borrowed, lent, sold and otherwise transferred is better. But I've given up on video games being that way years ago. I don't have a "collection" of video games any more than I'd have a collection of used chewing gum.
The other side of that coin, though, is that I never pay more than $20 for a game. Almost everything I buy is even under $10. (I think the Orange Box was the last time I paid anything like a retail price for a game. And that was three games.) The games are ephemeral, they could stop working at any moment for any of a million different reasons, and I'd have no recourse. So I'm not going to pay crazy archival prices.