The reason I tend to object to these things is that bikeshedding isn’t free, it creates work and technical debt. That raises the bar for changes we ought to make, and I think it raises it quite a lot higher than objections which are frequently specific to the US and are largely imaginary (which is my honest interpretation of most of these changes).

That said, “genocide” is clearly unnecessarily provocative. It’s also not an industry-wide change, it’s just one function, so this particular change seems sensible to me

Be cautious about trusting the AI-detection tools, they’re not much better than the AI they’re trying to detect, because they’re just as prone to false positives and false negatives as the agents they claim to detect.

It’s also inherently an arms race, because if a tool exists which can easily and reliably detect AI generated content then they’d just be using that tool for their training instead of what they already use, and the AI would quickly learn to defeat it. They also wouldn’t be worrying about their training data being contaminated by the output of existing AI, Which is becoming a genuine problem right now

True, that should have occurred to me. That’s what I get for not touching a compiler since the Christmas holidays started

That’s easy. The 2038 problem is fixed by using 64-bit processors running 64-bit applications. Just about everything built in the last 15 years has already got the fix

Using that fix, the problem doesn’t come up again for about 300 billion years

Hey now, some of us have standards.

We have shitty python scripts

Even that wouldn’t prove anything. You have to start a whole new conversation (ideally on a separate account so that OpenAI can’t play any clever games to make it look smarter than it is) and ask it there. Without doing that, the model will still have the context in which you told it to begin with

Because you might accidentally do something which breaks the system, or you might run a program which does something malicious without your knowledge.

By gating dangerous (or protected for any other reason) commands behind sudo, you create a barrier which is difficult to accidentally cross

It’s a matter of perspective. To someone who’s job is to write the system which interprets ASM, ASM is high level

You declaring a debt isn’t meaningful because you don’t have legal authority to do so.

A licence statement is describing in what way you’re granting permission for something you do have the right to control, which makes it meaningful

Nah, we’re alright. I don’t think anyone has clearly defined the requirements of earth citizenship, we can assume it’s like Ireland who hand it out like candy

No it wouldn’t. Whoever touched it last is responsible for it, that’s entirely consistent with the metaphore

I’m pretty sure it means exactly what it says, but you lot are all misreading it.

I interpret it as “all rights, except the right to commit, are reserved” (which doesn’t mean you surrender the right to commit, but rather that it’s the only right you aren’t depriving everyone else of)

I find it makes my life easier, personally, because I can set up and tear down environments I’m playing with easily.

As for your user & permissions concern, are you aware that docker these days can be configured to map “root” in the container to a different user? Personally I prefer to use podman though, which doesn’t have that problem to begin with

Podman supports docker compose just fine. You have to run it as a service, so that it can expose a socket like docker does, but it supports doing exactly that

Because a container is only as isolated from the host as you want it to be.

Suppose you run a container and mount the entire filesystem into it. If that container is running as root, it can then read and write anything it likes (including password databases and /etc/sudo)

Which is particularly surprising from a French company

That’s not fair. They’re complaining that they don’t like it, and that they want to be able to turn it off. They didn’t say it shouldn’t exist