I think It’s called Xbox Series 365 Office Copilot Pro+ for .NET

This is one of the reason that the USA being heavy handed with Chinese is going to bite us in the ass. While in the USA, we bury our heads in the sand and GM, Tesla and etc. all crank out $95,000 giant trucks/SUVs, some companies in China are making very, very affordable vehicles. These aren’t necessarily garbage either – there’s models available for almost any price point.

What WOULD be really smart and forward thinking is if in the USA, the domestic brands also make some affordable models to get EV more popular. However, they are addicted to fat profit margins, and thanks to all the protectionism, they don’t need to worry about offshore models being “better”.

While other nations either develop and/or import affordable EVs, we’re effectively banning them. This is all going to end up with a giant wake up call for American auto-manufacturers when the protections/tariffs are ultimately lifted and they HAVE to compete.

I think it would be great if the tariffs came with huge incentives for domestic manufacturers and motivated them to be competitive. Instead, it’s just letting them segment the market for a few years and make a killing. Who loses? The people…

audience already agrees that complicity in genocide is an acceptable tradeoff to software freedoms

I talked about that to show one possible counterbalance between liberty and usages which are probably not explicitly wanted by the authors.

Another common example of freedom/restrictions is someone wanting to have their software permissively licensed while also not allowing cloud vendors to resell access to it. That’s how you end up with licenses like Elastic’s.

Or, if you want another example of “free”, look at the distinction between the GPL and the BSD license as it applies to Sony and the Playstation. One of the reason Sony chose BSD for the basis of its gaming system is because the BSD license allows for commercial usage. In that sense it is MORE free than the GPL, which would not allow the type of usage Sony did with the Playstation without conferring more responsibility to Sony, for instance, releasing their source. Under BSD they have no obligation to do so, hence it is more free in that respect.

My whole point is a lot of people say “I want my software to be freely licensed” but they do not realize that they may be unintentionally opening the door to usages of the software that they do not want to see.

One should not pick a license that allows for unfettered usage of the software if you have certain ways you don’t want to see it used.

As a final parting example, look at Prusa and their printers. They release the firmware and designs as open source. They they later get angry when companies clone their designs. This is permissible under the license. This is making Prusa want to lock down their future designs to avoid that usage.

Anyone considering licensing of their own software should think very carefully about what usages they support or object to and license the software accordingly. If you release your software as BSD licensed and some company comes along and makes a billion dollars with it, you aren’t owned a cent under that agreement. If this makes you angry, don’t pick BSD.

Freedom comes with uncomfortable ramifications. This is inescapable. Freedom includes doing things that a given individual isn’t comfortable with. If you’re not happy with this trade-off, don’t use a license that allows “any” usage.

I can’t wait for the surge in cheap PCs available to buy and install Linux on. Please, Microsoft, lock down Windows more.

Meanwhile, poor Jellyfin just quietly doing the job.

That doesn’t undermine my point, that proves my point. Making something “FREE” (as in libre) comes with the consequence that people can use it for whatever they want. I assume you don’t agree with bombing Gaza, hence it is a perfect example of “freedom” leading to poor outcomes.

Simply grabbed it, and without contributing anything to the project did nothing except stripped the branding and then go sell it.

Unless this is specifically called out in the license, this is an activity allowed by many permissive open source licenses. If they knew that this type of activity was unwanted initially, then they didn’t choose the proper license.

Easy, because they want the social credibility of being open source, but also later, when the project gets big, they want to dictate exactly who uses it and how.

If you care about how your software is used to this degree – don’t open source it! Every open source package I have ever made has come with a permissive license, because I want people to be able to use it however they wish. That’s actual freedom. Unfortunately, a subset of “however they wish” can also be “used to bomb Gaza”, but that is the cost of liberty and freedom. You have to take the good with the bad.

Mozilla has tried so many things: I wonder if anyone there has considered releasing and maintaining a browser. They might have some luck against Chrome.

I wouldn’t trust that company to be their customer if I knew they operate like that

Hahaha, I suggest you never look behind the scenes at an F500 then. This would be one of the more sane things to happen in that environment.

They have always been open and clear about letting you build it and use it however you like.

I don’t disagree with the want to license software like this. The downside then is a subset of “letting you build and use it any way you like” includes registering N trial accounts every 30 days. If this isn’t actually spelled out as illegal under the license, some jerkbag will do it. I wish we didn’t live in this world, but we do.

Company sizes must be limited by law. No person shall own more than one company, no company shall employ more than 1000 people, any company with a net worth over 50 million has taxes go to 100% for any of the worth after those 50m.

Good luck with that one. Try to convince congress critters about this point of view while they take a second or two to look up from the pork barrel. I 100% agree this would be great, I just fail to see any possible way to get there.

Easy, just have two of your staff do alternate 24/7 shifts, renewing just in time. As long as this costs less than the price of licencing the proper way, still a “win”.

As a small aside “Open Source Free Trials?” If it’s open source, can’t they just disable the trial part? I think (as usual) some essential nuance got destroyed converting this article to a clickbait engaging exciting headline.

To anyone that isn’t aware of this: big companies don’t give a fuck about anything except stock price going up. They will crush dreams every quarter to do this. They don’t care.

If you don’t like how a company is using your software and you’re hoping they will have a conscience/heart… don’t! Fix your license to make this use case illegal/impossible if it really matters to you.

Or, consider if Open Source is even the right license here (although I think the headline is a bit confused here)…

If you want this “fixed”, tweak your license and/or send a cease and desist to that company and/or seek damages. Changing nothing and waiting for them to do the right thing, you’re going to be waiting infinitely, because they will never do the right thing. They will do the thing that gets them the most revenue with the least spending. That’s all you can count on.

Explain how to mesh that with “the stock price must go up each quarter, no matter what”

My favorite one that I’ve heard is: “ban it”. This has a lot of problems… let’s say despite the billions of dollars of lobbyists already telling Congress what a great thing AI is every day, that you manage to make AI, or however you define the latest scary tech, punishable by death in the USA.

Then what happens? There are already AI companies in other countries busily working away. Even the folks that are very against AI would at least recognize some limited use cases. Over time the USA gets left behind in whatever the end results of the appearance of AI on the economy.

If you want to see a parallel to this, check out Japan’s reaction when the rest of the world came knocking on their doorstep in the 1600s. All that scary technology, banned. What did it get them? Stalled out development for quite a while, and the rest of the world didn’t sit still either. A temporary reprieve.

The more aggressive of you will say, this is no problem, let’s push for a worldwide ban. Good luck with that. For almost any issue on Earth, I’m not sure we have total alignment. The companies displaced from the USA would end up in some other country and be even more determined not to get shut down.

AI is here. It’s like electricity. You can not wire your house but that just leads to you living in a cabin in the woods while your neighbors have running water, heat, air conditioning and so on.

The question shouldn’t be, how do we get rid of it? How do we live without it? It should be, how can we co-exist with it? What’s the right balance? The genie isn’t going back in the bottle, no matter how hard you wish.

Great! With this source code out, I can finally complete the port to Linux. I call it WSL24L, aka “Windows Subsystem For Linux 2, For Linux”

No, that one was actually pretty spot on. My uncle works at Nintendo and he told me it’s pretty similar there.

Silo is absolute pants on head as far as realism. Here’s just ONE example: the light bulbs in the bunker(s). To show what an immense challenge it would be to keep light-bulbs in the bunker, let’s make some assumptions:

Suppose the silo houses 10,000 people and has around 150 floors. If each person uses about 1.5 rooms on average, and each room has two light bulbs, that’s already 30,000 bulbs just for personal and work spaces. Add another 7,500 bulbs for common areas like hallways and stairwells, assuming 50 bulbs per floor. Throw in another 2,500 for things like emergency lighting and equipment. That brings the total to roughly 40,000 bulbs.

Now, consider that the average bulb lasts around 2,000 hours. If lights run about 16 hours a day, a bulb would last approximately 125 days. With 40,000 bulbs in use, about 320 of them would burn out every single day. That means someone needs to replace 320 bulbs a day, every day, just to keep the place lit. That alone is a full-time job for a crew of maintenance workers.

Storage becomes another massive problem. If they want to keep a 10-year supply of light bulbs, they would need 320 bulbs a day times 365 days times 10 years, which adds up to about 1.17 million bulbs. That is a staggering amount of fragile, breakable glass to store in an underground bunker.

And what about manufacturing? Are they making glass, vacuum-sealing bulbs, mining tungsten, and wiring filaments all inside the silo? Are there glassblowing workshops next to the hydroponics farm? Are they running vacuum pumps on diesel just to get replacement bulbs?

This is just one mundane aspect of life in the silo, and it already falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. Unless there’s a whole floor dedicated to crafting light bulbs by hand like some sort of monastery of electricians, it simply doesn’t add up.