Private companies are allowed to decline to host at their will. USA nor EU mandate that a platform must host content they don’t want to.

In practice, it’s possible that China companies operating outside of China won’t implement the same restrictions that they do within China. Whatever the Chinese government thinks the importance of maintaining censorship within the borders, it seems probable that the government and companies will be more pragmatic about realities in other nations.

On purpose? Not much.

The bigger concern would be when a criticism of China would be an important facet of a topic that would be covered, and omitting that would detract from the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the content.

Imagine if video hosting platforms couldn’t call out any of the stuff Trump does as wrong or incompetent. So so many topics would have to be ignored entirely to avoid offending the administration. Currently China criticism is a little less critical in the moment by comparison, but things shift over time.

For American consumer, sure.

But there may be price relief as the ultra rich datacenters insist they need to be able to source that Chinese memory and get some special exemptions, probably after a few million in bribes to Trump. That might free up some supply.

There is some decent Chinese stuff. Sometimes it’s hard to know though with the flood of crap. For example Anker seems consistently decent, but anything that sounds like Qihoon or Xiyomao or whatever random brand word they pop into existence on the other hand…

Note that the negative impact of these facilities are, by designed, concentrated on the communities that get stuck with them. The overall percentage has to be considered in the context of them focusing that impact into relatively small, super dense footprints.

Also, the percentage is higher than 1%, and in the US is about 5%. This reflects the current situation that the AI companies lament is just too constrained on them, with ambitions of getting to 20% if circumstances allow them to build up the way they want. So it’s already somewhat significant, especially with the way it gets concentrated, and further they want to bump it up at least four fold beyond what they’ve managed to do so far.

In anticipation of that, energy strategies that planned to be more tame and grow by renewables got pushed aside in favor of more natural gas, and especially portable power generation which tends to be more polluting.

The politicians of those communities have failed their constituents.

Sure, but have they failed their own bank accounts? Need to ask the important questions…

True, though not a whole lot of people think as highly about Eclipse or Apache as folks do Linux.

I don’t think companies are jumping up and down to try to manipulate their way to having nominal affinity to those projects compared to how so many companies want to have the ‘Linux approved’ impression with people not paying close attention to the ‘foundation’.

And in fact, I frequently have disagreed with the Linux foundation and think it shouldn’t carry the name Linux, as most of their projects aren’t particularly related to Linux work.

It’s been a way for corporations to attach the Linux marketing value to their pet projects for a long time.

Based on my AI enthusiast colleagues, I totally believe 100x productive.

100 x 0 == 0

So funny thing, a colleague of mine was arguing that there’s no reason to do a compiler because he got Claude to generate ELF binary directly for a hello world…

Some of the AI bros are very extremely bullish on it too the point of saying compilers are a waste of time…

Hence my references to DNS records in addition to MX to determine if an endpoint is SMTP only or better. For compatible interop.

Looks like replacing IMAP rather than SMTP, which is significantly less thorny.

Frankly, I’m rather shocked it hasn’t happened by now.

We’ve tried to bandaid over it with various weird things, but fundamentally SMTP is just weird.

I could easily imagine a domain having some SRV record to advertise “hey, I support NeoSMTP”, and peers switching to that instead, possibly pinning on successful NeoSMTP negotiation.

Get rid of a lot of the relaying which has not been useful in modern times and only a liability, and perhaps offer an https option to be less likely to be blocked (a TXT record to indicate url, and a node could declare their NeoSMTP entry point as https://mail.server/NeoSMTP/ or whatever works for them).

I was so happy when I ran out of tokens, I could just keep programming without management micromanaging how I got my job done.

The author seems to think this is some horribly intolerable scenario, impossible to keep going. That without tokens you can do nothing. Lamenting that it’s impossible to understand the code the LLM put out. This is a bad sign. If you let the LLM get beyond your ability to reasonably understand and audit, then you run the risk of getting screwed at any moment. If I saw this perspective from anyone that did work for me, I told be avoiding letting them anywhere near anything potentially important.

Net this has been the worst thing to happen to the discipline of software development. Maybe after the bubble pops we can have the more reasonable takes, but right now it’s just insufferable.

It’s not the creators intent, is the closed captioner. The director does not play a role in what goes into the closed captions generally.

Well a light refactor of deduplicating code would be a refinement that is generally easy to review and likely comfortably in the capability of the codegen.

Versus creating, which generally is harder to review and requires the submitter to explain the rationale behind the change.

Volume of code and nature of change.

Of that comes to pass, they can change it.

The codegen is a particularly big problem for famous open source projects. All of a sudden you have a flood of people trying to get their name on your project and flooding you with low quality stuff. Codegen enables folks without good ideas to generate submissions that demand a lot of review. Being about to shoot down obviously AI content without deeper review is pretty critical to keep the project viable. There may be good things tossed out with the bathwater, but it is a ton of bathwater. Besides, if there’s something real behind it, a good human is likely to emerge to take it forward more credibly.

Closed source or personal projects can enjoy a bit more judgement. You can evaluate the people independent of the submissions and may be able to have an even more nuanced take.

It’s not like it is a legally binding agreement that needs a high level of quality in adjucation. If things seem off then it can be cited and you don’t have to prove it. Conversely, if something passes human review despite being codegen, well then I guess the codegen isn’t that bad

I’ve seen a pull request that was ultimately nonsensical but plausible and short, and purported to be needed in a configuration none of the maintainers had access to. It was a pretty harmless change either way so they were inclined to accept it. But they sought a little clarification and the clearly LLM response in comment got it shut down. No human stepped up to actually explain an understanding and the LLM sounded like a TV show writer writing tech, sentences that sounded credible but to anyone with understanding was nonsensical bullshit.

LLM code can sometimes be hard to tell in a short code change, but the prose when things are anything vaguely needing explanation is just so very very obvious.

Yeah, but you’ll have to submit to every known provider and hope the user used one of the ones that provide this checking service, and didn’t do something like ask a local model to just randomize synonyms in a text.

You still have choices.

Variable names are pretty free form.

A switch statement or if/else might be a choice that achieves the same thing. Waffling between them would be highly suspect, since a person isn’t going to be so wishy washy. So you could use structural choices too.

AI code tends to look more obviously AI than prose anyway.