In a lot of 3rd world and less well off countries, childcare is done by the grandparents(mostly grandmothers), I'm always surprised why this isn't true in the west.
Here we have an aging population, so grandparent/grandchild ratio should be very high.
My guess would be that in developed countries, people are having kids older and older, so the grandparents are accordingly also older and more tired. That combined with multi-generational households being all but gone so now you're picking up and leaving off and all the kind of cooking and general housekeeping is also doubled.
If your parents had you at 25 and you have kids at 25 then your parents are 50 when you have a kid. Nowhere close to retirement age. People who are still working can't watch the kids five days a week.
FWIW the average age of first-time mothers in San Francisco is 33.6. It seems that still speaks against my theory. Maybe it's more that previous generations of women were less likely to have full-time employment at all?
there is also the sentiment of people in their 50s that they are done with taking care of kids. they want to enjoy their freedom now. it's just an anecdote, but for example my dad tried to marry again, but was unable to find a partner willing to marry someone with kids. i don't know if that translates to taking care of grand kids, but i think it is related.
in developing countries there are no pensions for many people and the young parents provide the support the grandparents need, taking care of the grandkids is one way to ensure that this support keeps coming.
Is it common for women to work in those countries?
What I'm seeing here in Europe is that mothers are working, so when they have grandchildren they are either still working or retired.
If they're working, they don't have time to do childcare.
If they're retired, they are either worn out and don't have the energy/physical ability to do childcare, or they just want to enjoy the few years of freedom they have.
So grandparents can do some childcare, during weekends or holidays mostly, but they are not the one who would take care of the children during the parent's 9-to-5.
On the other hand, I know some families where the mother staid at home to raise her children and she naturally assumed the same role for her grandchildren. But the chain is broken because their mother is working and will not stop working to do childcare for her grandchildren.
My brother's two boys both had kids. One of them, his wife, was going to go back to work after giving birth but had horrible feelings and cried when she took the baby to daycare after maternity leave. She quit and now stays home taking care of her baby.
The other boy, his wife, also cried and was torn between going back to a job she loved but felt incredibly guilty about leaving her newborn to daycare. She was fortunate that grandma retired from her job about the same time and now takes care of baby during the day.
Happy to report that everyone is very, very happy. This is normal. It's how I grew up.
Sure, it does happen but it’s not the normal model. Every mother feels horrible and cries when they institutionalize their kids, western society is based on most people doing this regardless. It is not scalable to educate women for 20 years just to have them become stay at home moms, just as a single farmer today has 40.000 chickens etc.
Two factors.
1. In an institution there are more kids/adult.
2. Child care is valued below average by society.
Combine these and it makes a lot of sense to trade a few below average valued workers for the release of many above average valued workers into the economy.
Capitalist dystopia summed up. "Mommy cannot see you say your first words because having mommy shove papers around is slightly more beneficial economically".
There's a health and capacity angle. A lot of today's grandparents are still working, dealing with their own medical issues, or simply don't have the energy to provide full-time childcare
i’m about to have my first child soon. My mother died in June. She loved little kids so it’s pretty tragic that she won’t get to experience being a grandmother. My dad is still around but he will likely be useless as a support system.
The man can barely cook anything and tends to make a mess. i also expect he’ll have a tough time changing diapers or holding a delicate baby, one of his hands has lots of numbness from a past stroke.
Thank god i have the BEST in-laws, who are also in great health. I can’t imagine what someone would do in my situation with bad in-laws.
very true! Mine are still working and after all are unable and unwilling to dedicate the whole time. They have plans or want to relax. Children are tiring. The west seems to be not only aging but also getting a bit lazy sometimes
My observations include a wholesale generational problem, where the group that would be responsible for this (boomers) tend to be highly narcissistic and focused on their own pleasures, instead of being a part of their grandchildren’s lives. They simply don’t want to be involved. There are exceptions to this rule but I’d say it’s very common in the US and more so than the rest of the world.
1. People have kids later, and older grandparents are less likely to be able to care for them
2. Kids moved away and left their parents in the suburbs, so they're not exactly around anyway. Also, a lot of Boomers sold their homes during Covid to cash in and moved elsewhere and/or downsized. So they might not be living in a place where you can just drop the kids off for a weekend.
3. Generally, only one of the grandparents in the Boomer generation is realistically capable of providing childcare, and that's the mom. If she's not alive anymore, you're not getting anything from your dad.
Nothing wrong with a GPL-like viral license for the AI era.
Training on my code / media / other data? No worries, just make sure the weights and other derived artifacts are released under similarly permissive license.
Well, I would say it should be like that already & no new license is needed. Basically if a LLM was ever based on GPL code, its output should be also GPL licensed. As simple as that.
Licenses like GPL are built on top of an enforcement mechanism like copyright. Without an enforced legal framework preventing usage unless a license is agreed to, a license is just a polite request.
Wouldn't you want the code generated by those models be released under those permissive licenses as well? Is that what you mean by other derived artifacts?
If model training is determined to be fair use under US copyright law—either legislated by Congress or interpreted by Federal courts—then no license text can remove the right to use source code that way.
RMS is probably greatly behind the technical news at this point. I mean, he's surfing the web via a email summary of some websites. Even if he doesn't condone of how the internet is evolving, he can't really keep up with technology if he doesn't "mingle".
He's also 72, we can't expect him to save everyone. We need new generations of FOSS tech leaders.
I am gen-z and I am part of the foss community (I think) and one of the issues about new generations of FOSS tech leaders is that even if one tries to do so.
Something about Richard stallman really is out of this world where he made people care about Open source in the first place.
I genuinely don't know how people can relicate it. I had even tried and gone through such phase once but the comments weren't really helpful back then on hackernews
As much as RMS meant for the world, he’s also a pretty petty person. He’s about freedom but mostly about user freedom, not creators freedom. I also went through such a phase but using words like “evil” is just too black and white. I don’t think he is a nice person to be around.l, judging from some podcasts and videos.
If there is one thing Stallman knows well is the way he uses words and I can assure you if he calls something "evil" that is exactly the word he meant to use.
> user freedom, not creators freedom
In his view users are the creators and creators are the users. The only freedom he asks you to give up is the freedom to limit the freedom of others.
RMS asks you to give something up: Your right to share a thing you made, under your conditions (which may be conditions even the receiving party agree on), nobody is forced in this situation, and then he calls that evil. I think that is wrong.
I love FOSS, don't get me wrong. But people should be able to say: I made this, if you want to use it, it's under these condition or I won't share it.
Again, imho the GPL is a blessing for humanity, and bless the people that choose it freely.
> RMS asks you to give something up: Your right to share a thing you made, under your conditions (which may be conditions even the receiving party agree on), nobody is forced in this situation, and then he calls that evil. I think that is wrong.
This is not true, though. As a copyright holder, you are allowed to license your work however you wish, even if it's under for example GPL-3.0-or-later or whatever. You can license your code outside of the terms of the GPL to a particular user or group of users for example for payment.
Really, it's only when the user agrees to abide by the license that you'd have to give access to source code when asked, for example.
> I love FOSS, don't get me wrong. But people should be able to say: I made this, if you want to use it, it's under these condition or I won't share it.
And they can. Whether that wins one any friends or not is another matter.
Creators are not creators, they're also users. There's a very solid chance that a better world for everyone would be achieved if freedoms for all users would be bullet proof. Every user should be able to modify and repair all their hardware and software without creator involvement.
And we just don't think about all the software that is then not being created because people feel it's immediately everyone's property and so won't even bother?
Sure, we can copy software, so it's not like they are taking your house. But "they" may be taking your livelihood.
Ok, objectively perhaps the world would be better, but we can't know. And opinions don't mean anything. What matters is individuals and being fair to them, whatever society grows from that is just what we have.
That said, if we ever go multi-planet, and there is a planet with no copyright and everything is GPL, I'd check it out and imagine I'd feel quite at home there.
Which is why we perhaps need a GPLv4? With some provisions that force open sourcing model architecture + weights when using such code as training material?
And also provisions somehow handling hyper scalers. Hyper scalers are big enough that they can build everything from scratch and stop ripping off FOSS individual and small company contributors.
You can follow him on https://stallman.org/
What is he doing? I believe still giving talks and taking stance on current day political issues.
Additionally I believe the last few years where quite turbulent so I assume he is taking life at his own pace.
That is a complete fools errand. If it ever passes it would just mean the death of Open Source AI models. All the big companies would just continue to collect whatever data they like, license it if necessary or pay the fine if illegal (see Antropic paying $1.5 billion for books). While every Open Source model would be starved for training data within its self enforced rules and easy to be shut down if ever a incorrectly licenses bit slips into the models.
The only way forward is the abolishment of copyright.
I don't follow. If the model was open-sourced under this GPL-like license (or a compatible license), then it would follow the GPL-like license. If the model was closed, it would violate the license. In other words, it would not affect open-source models at all.
Similarly, I could imagine carving out an exception when training on copyrighted material without licence, as long as the resulting model is open-sourced.
> If the model was closed, it would violate the license.
Training is fair use. The closed models wouldn't be impacted. Even if we assume laws gets changed and lawsuits happened, they just get settled and the closed source models would progress as usual (see Bartz v. Anthropic).
Meanwhile if somebody wants to go all "GPL AI" and only train their models on GPL compatible code, they'd just be restricting themselves. The amount of code they can train on shrinks drastically, the model quality ends up being garbage and nothing was won.
Further, assuming laws got changed, those models would now be incredible easy to attack, since any slip up in the training means the models need to be scraped. Unlike the big companies with their closed models, Open Source efforts do not have the money to license data nor the billions needed to settle lawsuits. It would mean the end of open models.
Essentially LLMs are recontextualizing their training data. So on one hand, one might argue that training is like a human reading books and then inference is like writing something novel, (partially) based on the reading experience. But the contract between humans considers it plagiarism when we recite some studied text and then claim it as your own. So for example, books attribute citations with footnotes.
With source code we used to either re-used a library as-is, in which case the license terms would apply OR write our own implementation from scratch. While this LLM recontextualization purports to be like the latter, it is sometimes evident that the original license or at least some attribution, comment or footnote should apply. If only to help with future legibility maintenance.
I think this mixes up the 'how' with the 'why.' FOSS isn't the end in itself, I think that for most people it's just the tool that lets us work together, share what we've built, and get something back from the community.
If this is suddenly being weaponised against us, I don't see how that's not a problem.
If you consider that the people weaponizing code are not honest, I as a FOSS producer am unworried. There may not be a lot of people out there able to use my code compared to LLMs scraping it, but I'm giving a leg up to other humans trying to do what I do.
If what I'm doing is interesting or unusual, LLMs will firstly not recognize that it's different, secondly will screw up when blindly combining it with stuff that isn't different, and thirdly if it's smart enough to not screw that up, it will ignore my work in favor of stealing from CLOSED source repos it gains access to, on the rationale that those are more valuable because they are guarded.
And I'm pretty sure that they're scraping private repos already because that seems the maximally evil and greedy thing to do, so as a FOSS guy I figure I'm already covered, protected by a counterproductive but knowingly evil behavior.
These are not smart systems, but even more they are not wise systems, so even if they gain smarts that doesn't mean they become a problem for me. More likely they become a problem for people who lean on intellectual property and privacy, and I took a pretty substantial pay cut to not have to lean on those things.
For a lot of people, FOSS is also very much the why. It’s not just a practical tool—it represents core principles like freedom, transparency, and collaboration. Those values are the reason many contribute in the first place.
Emphasis on the freedom, especially the freedom to use by anyone for any purpose.
If it took some people in the FOSS space this long that it also includes people, companies or purposes they disagree with, then I don't know what to tell them.
You are correct but in the context of free software, the FSF has been explicit about this ("The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose"). Publishing software under a FOSS license imply that you agree with this definition of freedom.
Have you actually read one a Free/Open-Source license? Like for example the MIT[1] license:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software [...] to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software [...]
Or the FSF's definition[2] of Free Software
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
Or the OSI's definition[3] of open source.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
It's almost as if this concept is at the very core of FOSS.
Yes. Much as there's "MIT free", there's also "AGPL free", and many "MIT free" people consider the AGPL "non-" or less free due to restrictions, while "AGPL free" people consider it more free by demanding its derivatives also be free.
While "use for any purpose" has been included, I think considering purpose is a natural extension of this concept. Suppose there were some software project that aimed to practically eliminate the ability for users to share and use free or open software as it is today. Is it more free to allow such a project to be unrestricted from using other software, even if that project would lead to the destruction of free software otherwise?
That's like saying "I have the freedom to kill you".
Saying that you can create something, then you reserve the 'freedom' to limit what everyone else does for it really doesn't fall under the word freedom at all.
The interpretation is simple and the complete opposite of "I have the freedom to kill you".
The software creator (human or AI) must give the user of its software the same freedoms it has received.
If it has received the freedom to view the original, readable, source code, then users should have the freedom to view the original, readable, source code.
If it has received the freedom to modify the source code, then users should have the freedom to modify the source code.
Etc.
It's not hard to follow for people who want to do the moral thing.
It's VERY hard to follow for people who want to make money (and ideally lots of it, very quickly).
I think you'll find, especially within the tech community, people struggle with purity and semantics. They see that supporting and promoting FOSS is to be okay with its use for war, oppression, or whatever mental gymnastics they need to just not care or promote bad things. They will argue about what "free and open" means and get mixed up in definitions, political alignments, etc.
It is pretty obvious to me, that being blase about whomever using FOSS for adversarial reasons is not very "open" or "free". Somewhere in the thread there is an argument about the paradox of intolerance and I don't really care to argue with people on the internet about it because it is hard to assume the debate is in good faith.
My point is this: Throw away all your self described nuance and ask this yourself whether or not you think any malicious, war-monger, authoritarian, or hyper-capitalist state would permit a free and open source software environment? If the objective of a business, government, or billionaire is power, control, and/or exclusivity then, well, your lofty ideals behind FOSS have completely collapsed.
No I am not. Your response proves my point in regards to getting bogged down in semantics. In a nutshell, my point is that if we do not care or do nothing when it comes to malicious use of FOSS, you very well may lose FOSS or at least the ability to develop in a FOSS environment. It is the paradox of intolerance of a different flavor.
I agree with the sentiment, but unfortunately often this is too simplistic.
For example, a lot of Palestinians are not tolerant towards LGBT people -> a lot of LGBT people are not tolerant towards Israelis -> a lot of Israelis are not tolerant towards Palestinians.
Also how do you know if you are intolerant or intolerant towards intolerance?
> I agree with the sentiment, but unfortunately often this is too simplistic. For example, a lot of Palestinians are not tolerant towards LGPT people -> a lot of LGPT people are not tolerant towards Israelis -> a lot of Israelis are not tolerant towards Palestinians.
Nice bait with broad sweeping generalizations there.
One of critiques of "Paradox of Tolerance" is its proponents (probably not Karl Popper himself) take the argument to its extremes (similar to the generalization you posit), while the reality is more of a spectrum.
I didn't intend it to be bait. It is a generalization, but if you read carefully, there is "a lot" at each point.
And pretending that there aren't large swaths of people who have different ideas and you can group them into "tolerant" and "none tolerant" is also a generalization.
Yes, I think of “paradox of tolerance” as a sort of glib rebuttal people give when enjoined to tolerate someone.
“Fuck you, that person is intolerant, I get to do whatever I want to them. And man, how uncultured are you that you would even suggest otherwise. You must never have heard of this philosopher!”
> But the part about FOSS being used in a project not aligned with the creator's values seams hypocritical
I agree with you.
Imagine a parallel Earth where there was a free OS that the majority in the world used called GNU/Felix.
Felix (it/its), who wrote GNU/Felix and who was the project’s strong but kind leader, one day had a head injury that somehow decreased its empathy but raised its IQ.
Subordinates of Felix on the council of leadership noticed that it was adding features that would track all user data to use in some nefarious plan.
In this case, most would agree that for both the freedom and good of all, Felix should no longer lead this effort.
However, they would want to be sure that even the Will Bates’ great company Bikerosoft didn’t lead the project either, because despite its wonderful and ubiquitous Bikerosoft Office apps and Ezure cloud tools and infrastructure, it was a profit-based company.
I'm always surprised how much people dislike X/Twitter. It has arguably the most humane/pro democratic moderation systems (community notes, verifications, visible locations) compared to alternatives.
Similarly, Musk isn't really better or worse than the other billionaires/trillioners out there.
(I typed out a reply to the above but the gp got flagged into oblivion before I hit submit so I've copy pasted it into the only non-reactionary descendant thread for pastry posterity)
Reply to the original now-flagged comment:
---
This.
I might reword your statement to "musk isn't notably worse than...", & I will say twitter has significantly declined in many ways since he took over - both the software quality (many things no longer work - especially e.g. search - & people just frustratingly accept it because broken window theory I guess) & also many of the new features being objectively horrific (like Grok generating CPM on demand without ramifications).
However at its core Twitter is still the same Twitter it always was in terms of the toxic but politically engaged & zeitgeist-relevent live community discussion that takes place there. Reddit may rival it within some narrow selective niches but there's nothing else giving us what Twitter is giving us in terms of being connected to what is happening in international political culture. On both sides of the spectrum: conservative discourse is a lot more broad & active on Twitter than on Truth Social or similar, & outside of weird insular tankie Discord or Matrix servers, Twitter is also where it's at for leftist discourse; Bsky & Mastodon are both deserts.
It's only "objective" if you accept the beneficiaries of those donations as "objectively" benign.
I don't fully agree with the gp's statement - Musk is at least a little worse than most - but Gates in particular is a terrible counter-example. Especially in light of recent document releases.
Without commenting on Mike's tone in this instance, nobody can be universally friendly, in all situations: many friendlinesses conspire to yield an aggregate unfriendliness, so it's important to avoid those particular friendlinesses (or otherwise mitigate the issue). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Woah, slow down there. One of your requirements to a code editor is video preview?
I didnt even know this existed.
Gonna spin up VSCode at home and find out.
I had a miserable experience with it. It could not do as simple task as discovering my python interpreter! IDEs are a dime a dozen these days — most are fast enough. But common workflows need to be air tight.
The issue there is what you expect; when Sublime Text came out and later VS Code, they intentionally didn't have the same features as IDEs like Eclipse and IntelliJ IDEA had. The ecosystem of those is very impressive and feature rich, but for a lot of tasks that was overkill and the performance cost was too big.
X years later and VS Code is the one with the biggest ecosystem and therefore also has the largest and most complex addons.
Zed is starting from scratch again, relying on developers to create extensions. However, I'll argue that because Zed is Rust based instead of web tech based like Code, it'll be harder to get as big an ecosystem as Code has. Same with IDEs, some of the biggest plugins have corporate backers who pay people to develop and maintain them.
Yes! I also got bitten by format_on_save when working with legacy projects with inconsistent formatting. Given another discussion I saw, the maintainers didn't think about this use case much, i.e. "why don't you want to have a proper formatting?". It can be turned off now, so not sure if they'll change the default.
It's like Excel changing .csv files after opening them so a simple load/save cycle can corrupt the file and your original copy is nowhere to be found.
I imagine the damage is smaller in case of auto-formatter but still - not something I would expect a program to do to my file in a simple "open file - close the program" cycle.
The VSCode Debugger is the only thing that keeps it installed on my work machine.
Lately I've been doing all my editing in Helix and switching over to Xcode for debugging though. It's even more consistent than VSCode, which occasionally leaks memory and blows itself up. I haven't had time to really learn lldb at the command line but it may have to be the next step.
The only other thing I miss is VSCode's Find-All/Replace-All because it maintains the include/exclude paths and Helix doesn't (that I know of)
I find myself using VS Code for "things like this" (its visual extension ecosystem).
I've grown attached to the git diff view, so I use it for reviewing PRs mostly (especially larger ones as github UI has been struggling with them as of late).
The rest of my code is written in Vim or by Claude.
I really like Zed, and I want to use it but I keep going back to VSCode when I need to be productive on my code instead of messing with my editor. I use both at the same time because Zed feels so much nicer, but so far, VSCode's features are quite a bit head.
I was also disappointed by the lack of Jupyter notebooks support: I ended up not using Jupyter notebooks that much anymore, and when I do, well, I run them in Jupyter
Depending on the crime, most people would agree that face/gait recognition is warranted, for example in case of murder or rape.
The difference here is that some people consider "illegal immigration" to be more like a misdemeanor, others consider it to be something much more serious.
Agreed and wanted to add. If it exists, can do the job, and the person in charge is aware of it, then it will inevitably be used. There's no such thing as "only for certain situations" unless there is a large inherent cost to using it outside of the proscribed scenario.
If you mandate the placement of fireman's axes by every door, at some point someone is going to use one of them to commit murder or vandalism or some other crime. There is effectively nothing that can be done to prevent that other than choosing not to mandate their placement.
> others consider it to be something much more serious.
We have limited funds for social safety nets for our own citizens: how is it not "serious" that we would deplete them on folks who are willfully and intentionally breaking our rules for financial benefit?
They pay into social security when they have a job just like anyone else.
If it's weak social safety net then why would the immigrants choose this country for financial benefit? You're contradicting yourself right in the next bullet point.
They came here for the American Dream, which is about finding a new life free from oppression against all odds. It's what this country is built on. There's nothing more patriotic than welcoming the oppressed with open arms and helping them build a new life. It's what happened when your ancestors came to this country.
> They pay into social security when they have a job just like anyone else.
Really? None are paid under the table? Who pays their ER bills when they break their arm while performing illegal farm labor, for instance?
> If it's weak social safety
net then why would the immigrants choose this country for financial benefit? You're contradicting yourself right in the next bullet point.
Because it's better than from wherever they came? These goals aren't incompatible. Jobs are reason enough, free shit is icing on the cake.
> They came here for the American Dream,
Breaking the law in the process, and pissing on everyone who bothered to obtain it legally.
> It's what happened when your ancestors came to this country.
My ancestors weren't given free shit upon arrival - you can have a welfare system or open borders, not both.
Legally, you're required to pay taxes even if you're getting underpaid. Many undocumented people use ITINs. Your whole argument is based on false assumptions.
Proportionately far fewer, obviously? What? Are you going to honestly try and argue in good faith that per capita, people already breaking laws with no legal means to work are paying taxes at the same rate? Either way: it doesn't matter!
> who pays bills of citizens w/o insurance that are rushed to the emergency room?
Guess what? - and this might be a hard pill to swallow: we don't owe foreigners anything.
Your argument distills down to: "there are some citizen lawbreakers, too, so a few more shouldn't hurt!"
> you sure about that?
Social security among other things didn't exist, so, yeah, I am very sure about that.
> We're all the same people, stop hating.
Not wanting to finance unskilled lawbreakers at the expense of my own people is not "hate" - sorry!
> This isn't true, it's a pillar of the USA to harbor refugees and welcome immigrants. It's our entire history. It's our entire identity.
All of these dreamy tales are from before the New Deal for a reason.
> I dont think so. There's a lot of people in this country, far more citizens than illegal immigrants.
The word "proportionately" means something: if you believe that the same percentage of illegal immigrants pay taxes as legal citizens, you are definitively wrong. Legal immigrants probably pay taxes at a higher rate (by systemic design), but there's simply no way this is true for border hoppers.
> capital punishment for every crime if you dont have a degree? what are you arguing?
And how well do deported people fair? Sometimes they'll be returned to dangerous situations they were fleeing, sometimes to impoverished areas, sometimes even to prisons. I'm guessing some do end up dead. Even for those who manage, some might never see family members again.
> Illegal immigrants are absolutely a net-negative financial, quality-of-life drain on society at large.
I mean - source? Or are we just talking out of our asses?
Just intuitively, most immigrants pay taxes because they work regular jobs. And they're exempt from most social safety nets, too. How are they a net negative? Aren't we, basically, exploiting them, and not the other way around?
I live in Texas, and looking around, I'm gonna tell you right now it's not fatass white people pouring pavement or building homes. It's laborers who, I'm assuming, may or may not have immigrated illegally from Latin America and may or may not be paid a fair wage.
> most immigrants pay taxes because they work regular jobs
Source? Or are we just talking out of our asses? "Most" means something.
> And they're exempt from most social safety nets, too
Emergency rooms, census, etc. all still apply.
> How are they a net negative?
- Remittances directly take money out of our economy
- Per capita, as with most citizens, they cannot and do not pay their percentage of the government tax burden
- Free use of our social safety nets - ERs, many local government services, schools, etc.
- No community ties: if an illegal immigrant messes up, they can just move on the same way they came in.
- Directly stress an already-strained housing supply (inb4 'they do construction so they increase the supply!')
> Aren't we, basically, exploiting them
Yes! This is bad and needs to stop: by exploiting them (slave labor), we're additionally harming our most vulnerable part of the population - our own unskilled/impoverished workers.
> I'm gonna tell you right now it's not fatass white people pouring pavement or building homes
Because they are being undercut by illegal labor with no protections and lower wages? How is "we need slave labor!" a valid argument?
I don't think slave labor is good or desirable, but I do think that, obviously, that's not exploitative for the slaver. The slaver is not the one being exploited in that relationship.
I just don't see how they're a strain on us, like, at all. And I actually live in Texas. Yes there's a lot of theories and conjecture, but I think most of it is, frankly, made up.
It's trivial, truly trivial, to eradicate illegal immigration for good. Just make a law where if you hire an illegal immigrant, your executives go to jail. The problem would solve itself expiditiously.
But the GOP would never propose anything close to that, because they don't want to reduce illegal immigrantation. They don't. It's one of their greatest vectors of exploitation and one of the few factors that makes some red states economically viable.
So, if you're operating under the assumption ANY of this is for the purpose of reducing illegal immigration, you've been conned.
We have a court system specifically meant to interpret the law, and a tiered appeals process for when one of the courtroom parties disagrees with that court’s interpretation.
Quick, does the First Amendment allow the government to place any restrictions on speech? The words are right there for the reading and knowing, so that should be a simple question, surely?
I'm very skeptical about such systems, although they note that:
> You can crop it, resample it, compress it, smooth out pixels, or add noise, and the effects of the poison will remain. You can take screenshots, or even photos of an image displayed on a monitor, and the shade effects remain
if this becomes prevalent enough, you can create a lightweight classifier to remove "poisonous" images, then use some kind of neural-network(probably an autoencoder) to "fix" them. Training such networks won't be too difficult as you can create as many positive-negative samples as you want by using this tool.
I dunno about this one, but I remember the previous versions suffered from visible artifacts to the point most artists elected not to use them as they made the output look bad.
It's also not obvious to me what happens with cartoon style art. Something that looks like white noise might be acceptable on an oil painting but not something with flat colors and clean lines.
As with most things like this, it is a cat and mouse game. On the one hand, I am annoyed, because I am personally rather firmly on the side of 'why are we spending time trying to prevent people doing this somewhat cool thing?', but at the same time, just like with drms, copy restrictions and all that idiocy, it raises a new line of kids with something to rebel against. So I guess it serves a purpose. On a third hand, can you imagine those minds being able to focus on something else?
So far so good. The feature set is bit random though. Things i personally miss is function overloading, default values in parameters and tuple returns.
Here we have an aging population, so grandparent/grandchild ratio should be very high.