unexpectedteapot

There is a tad bit of difference between caring about an opinion and tolerating one. Obama's opinions on AI are unqualified pop culture nonsense. They wouldn't be relevant in an actual discussion that would cite relevant technical, economical and philosophical aspects of AI as points.

I keep seeing this idea everywhere. Buy a Google phone and install another OS.

It is completely absurd to fund the exact adversaries you are running away from, while consuming, without contributing a dime, merely a piece of free software. (It is only a small piece of freedom because none of the hardware is free, and some binary blobs [incl. potential backdoors] will still be present in the alternative OS no matter which one it is.)

This is unsustainable, terrible, damaging advice. Stop giving it.

Reddit acknowledges and allows subreddits like r/TheRedPill and r/FemaleDatingStrategy, it is a sponsor of hate and controversy because it allows more profit through sensationalist engagement and data collection.

73 million for a few years of a defederated Mastodon fork. Yeah, totally not fraud.

How about you read the one link you are commenting on before asking for another? It is in the article.

I am aware of the difference in philosophy taken by both Gnome and KDE, but would you mind elaborating on the 'assholes' bit?

Honestly, I am always appalled by most "pop"-tech journalists like these. They either just repost the tech specs with the least nuance known to mankind, or they make absurd assumptions by having weird expectations (i.e: the infamous Cuphead review) going in. Seems like in this case it is both!

I attribute this to the much centralisation that completely deformed the internet, and a totalitarian attitude to criticism by critics (hypotactic, isn't it?) they remove and/or make it very hard to have a discussion on their articles.

Back before much of this centralisation of the internet, low-effort popcorn reviews like these would be absolutely panned in the very visible comment section. Also, shitty editorialised titles (which by the way usually aren't even by the author) like these were not as prevalent without massive scrutiny.

Not gonna happen, the developer made it quite clear from the get-go. Also, their community are quite hostile against it and pretty much most FOSS stuff for some reason.

I can see a fork taking what is useful about it (UI/UX) and adopting solid backends (federation, proper VoIP with screen sharing, etc.)

I understand the sentiment, but I do not come to the same conclusion that of increasing accessibility via offering more features in unfree proprietary software. The intended consequences of this were publicised by US Justice Department in their uncovering of Microsoft's memo labelled Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish which outlines how this eventually leads to less, not more, accessibility.

That aside, Microsoft Windows already supported ZIP which is an open standard. The addition of RAR, which is a proprietary unfree standard, is actually less open.

...and kids, this is why you (A)GPLv3 your code. Always.

It's like the other comments are living in a parallel universe.

What part of the article did they actually read? Isn't the Slack/Electron resource utilisation screenshot enough to prove an important point?

No, Electron-based applications are not better than "they used to be."

We all fucking know why Electron got all of these companies interested in making applications with it: cheap, probably imported labour to build applications. That's it. And no, it is not better "DX" either. NPM and the NodeJS ecosystem in general are toxic and unsustainable for larger applications.

They "don't" allow it, that's how licenses work.

I keep seeing comments like these on source available nonfree software, but it really doesn't factor in the fact that older software is NOT going to be used due to bugs, features missing, technical debt, secuity vulnerabilities, etc. So unless it is forked (i.e: OpenTofu), it is as good as useless for everyone but hobbyists.