In historical context (especially without technological verification of where goods are ending up, counterrevolutionary presence and so on) I totally see why Lenin felt all this was necessary, extraordinarily strict criteria and all.

I hope when we see a socialist revival in Europe, we are able to leverage less personally invested measures such as those proposed in Stafford Beer’s work. Hopefully we can efficiently measure inputs and outputs to the economic and state machinery and use that as cause for inspection rather than making it a day to day business, and in general make things robust to differences in ideology. Use technology to enhance the efficiency of bureaucracy rather than introducing potential conflicts of interest by combining worker organisations with the state/party.

But these things may be easier said than done.

Some LLMs have specific jailbreaks which including in the document may cause them to act strangely in a way that is specific to the LLM. But it’s unlikely to be robust over time as they get patched/changed/etc.

Strictly speaking these all do something similar-ish at face value but actually quite different in terms of mechanism and target. I think the unpopularity of a lot of these licensing structures is also down to lack of legal verification in a lot of cases.

The illegality possibility does warrant careful consideration, but I suspect in many cases regimes which would oppose this kind of license would be making the use and enforcement of software fairly selective in any case. If it is made illegal, it’s made illegal by the respective government, not the software author or license writer.

A question is then raised as to what degree the implied open source requirement that open source should be leveraged by e.g. Nazis actually benefits developers and users. Or whether it is in effect a kind of appeasement as no doubt use which contradicts those values (and hence promotes freedom) is illegal already. Those uses which are orthogonal to that aim may be selectively targeted for arbitrary reasons such as the identity of the user.

Strictly speaking I think such provisions would be unenforceable in those circumstances anyway so doesn’t the effect kind of cancel out? Don’t get me wrong I get where you’re coming from but why would we imagine such a license has an effect in nations that are already hostile to those ideas and probably have broken judicial systems anyway?

It is ok to question the benefits of open source provisions. They are written by humans and are fallible.

Yep, it makes sense when you consider the real nature of management and why it actually exists.

A rich man starts a company. He hires 12 people under him. He’s working a bit harder than he’d hoped, he’s constantly fielding questions and such but all is well. He needs to hire two more people. This is too many for him to manage directly, so he appoints two people to manage the other twelve as two teams of 6. All is well again.

They expand up to 30 people and suddenly they find the two managers are too stretched again! So another manager has to be introduced. When the company is over about 150 people, we even need multiple layers of management to keep this whole thing afloat as suddenly there are too many managers reporting to the founder or to the managers.

Yet at no point does the person who owns the company agree to give up any real control. If someone sets a budget he doesn’t like, he gives that control of the budget to someone else. Everyone in that hierarchy is acting on behalf of the owners under this arrangement.

The managers are just sat there with the mandate to make employees do more work under ever-increasing resource constraints, in the name of profit maximisation.

The management hierarchy functions as little more than a way of getting the owner’s instructions down to the employees by people who can interpret them as such, and to feed issues back to whatever level has the ability to deal with them (or declare them not an issue, as is often the case).

I’ve been using this for a while. It’s good, lots better than postman’s annoying attempts to force you into their cloud nonsense.

well the publishing associations should be catching wind of this and it’s already going through court so I guess we’ll find out.

But if I had to guess I’d say the bourgeois court system which is loaded with Trump’s picks right at the top is actually not going to let the billionaire donor go to jail

Oh great, let’s just give Farage and co. a big old back door to spy on us when he inevitably stumbles into power. Can’t see that being abused in any way.

Oh yeah the hosted DeepSeek has that

oh interesting, but they did seed some. Distributors! Zuck go straight to yar-har jail

The very stretched use of the word “voluntary” here also leads one to inspect the meaning of “departure”.

I think there’s a balance, in that if everybody suppressed that speech and refused to take that risk of criticising then those corrupt and powerful state actors would be unchallenged.

They can then become even more powerful and may continue to encroach into private life and speech. While it may be necessary to defend yourself on the one hand, hiding entirely may also present additional dangers.

I’m very much so on this team. Single digit hours are too early, frankly.

Presumably every other country now ought to update their safety advice as it pertains to the US. Bleak.

Hanlon’s razor. It’s pretty clear some people can be stupid and malicious simultaneously, or will even feign stupidity to hide malice.

Yeah but I bet he’s a 10x ninja

A good way is to find a meetup group with some shared interest. It doesn’t really matter what so long as the crowd is good and you know enough to hold a conversation in the subject.