Yes. But my point is that until now that has not been made explicit, so there’s no reason for websites to require IDs right now, at least not until the government does mandate such a system. So I was wondering what’s the minimal effort that would satisfy current mandate.

The thing is that age verification in a digital world is not easy… what exactly does the government mandate as a valid verification method?

Like… would asking the user their age be valid enough? … because it’s not like a reliable method exist (not even credit card verification prevents a minor from taking their parents card and go through it). IMHO, until the government doesn’t actually set a standard, I don’t see why websites should actually give anything else than the most minimal effort possible when it comes to this.

The second most restrictive of the Creative Commons licenses (only behind the BY-NC-ND one). CC BY-NC-SA is not considered an open source license.

It gives the most control to the original owners of the Copyright, since only they can produce commercial and proprietary versions of the product. Free as in free beer, but not as in freedom.

I agree, which is why I think running those open source apps in a separate computer, isolating infotainment from the more critical software, would be a stronger safety layer.

Them being separated should, imho, be a precondition, so that it can minimize accidents and exploits in cars that might be running software that is not immediately up to date as a result from publicly and well known vulnerabilities being discovered as the code evolves.

Open source software is not bug free. I’d argue there are more vulnerabilities caused by human error than there are caused by malicious actors. More often than not, malicious actors are just exploiting the errors/gaps left by completely legit designers.

Running those open source apps in a separate computer, isolating infotainment from the more critical software, would be an even stronger safety layer, imho.

Running it through the same computer is a bad practice, imho. Remember the Jeep Hack where researchers were able to dig into the integrated infotainment system and control the brakes?

I wouldn’t want to have critical car functions (or emissions control, regulatory software, ADAS, telematics, etc) depend on the same device that someone might be using to connect to the internet and/or run Android Auto apps. Regardless of whether it’s integrated or not.

I guess it might be ok to share energy and some non-critical capabilities with the infotainment system… but you can do that through a USB-C connection without requiring it be integrated directly in the vehicle. Imho they should be isolated, and what best way of isolating it than being completely different computers?

At least when it comes to the German one, it’s essentially a rebranding of existing open source products packaged/adapted to work as a suite.

For example, for editing documents they are using Collabora online (Libreoffice-based), for chat it’s Matrix, for storage Nextcloud, email & calendar from Ox Cloud, etc.

This just applies to the French government, unless you land a public job it’s likely you’d still have to deal with that shit.

Still, it’s good news and lets hope it sets a trend.

Yes, but that’s the point. Why focus on something that does not make them criminals when there are other things that might?

Most people already carry infotainment devices in their pockets that can be attached to holders and charging ports in the car. Even better if you connect a hub with some SSD storage to keep movies/music.

I feel infotainment systems bundled in cars are mostly redundant and explicitly made to be non-modular so that they can get you into their walled garden.

you shouldn’t be adjusting it while driving but, my response is why have it in the first place.

Exactly. If you shouldn’t be adjusting it, then why is the touchscreen even accepting adjustments in the first place? … it should be rejecting all touches whenever the engine is running to prevent people from even trying, which completely defeats the point of having a touchscreen in the first place anyway…

It makes no sense to have an input that explicitly requires you to take your eyes away from the road in order to operate it.

And specially for Microsoft, they would be shooting their own foot if they were to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in the development community over the legality of the use of AI tools like Copilot, which they themselves promote and sell.

My understanding is that since WSL version 2 (publicly launched a few years ago I think) it comes with a wayland implementation built-in, and it uses xwayland to run X11 compatible apps. At least if you are using a compatible image.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/tutorials/gui-apps

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/wslg-architecture/

LLMs abstract information collected from the content through an algorithm (what they store is the result of a series of tests/analysis, not the content itself, but a set of characteristics/ideas). If that makes it derivative, then all abstractions are derivative. It’s not possible to make abstractions without collecting data derived from a source you are observing.

If derivative abstractions were already something that copyright can protect then litigants wouldn’t resort to patents, etc.

You are not gonna protect abstract ideas using copyright. Essentially, what he’s proposing implies turning this “TGPL” in some sort of viral NDA, which is a different category of contract.

It’s harder to convince someone that a content-focused license like the GPLv3 protects also abstract ideas, than creating a new form of contract/license that is designed specifically to protect abstract ideas (not just the content itself) from being spread in ways you don’t want it to spread.

I don’t think we would be throwing USB-C away completelly, because it even became mandated by law in EU with the goal of trying to slow down the rate at which people generate trash by getting new cables and power bricks for every new generation of connectors.

But I agree that at the very least there should be a clear labeling mandated by consumer protection laws as well… it’s a nightmare and a scenario that opens the door for a lot of scams… this is even made worse by the fact that nowadays you can even have malicious software running inside of the connector of a cable plugged into an extremely capable port without realizing it, messing up with your device even though the only thing you wanted was to charge it.

I have something like this myself, it’s useful for knowing the power delivery of the cable/port combination, but I’m not sure if that really helps when it comes to determining the speed of the data transmission that the cable/port is capable of, or other features like displayport support, or which version of USB4 it might be supporting (I believe they have the same power delivery, even though the transfer speed is double).

This one is p2p: https://github.com/schlagmichdoch/PairDrop (or just try it in https://pairdrop.net/ )

But that also means that you need to keep the page open while the other device downloads.

Another p2p alternative is using webtorrent: https://instant.io/

Code being visible is not very useful if you can’t distribute it, extend it, expand it and improve it.

It’s meant in the sense of “underwhelming” (as shown by the follow-up comment the article references). It’s not incompatible to be surprised at how capable AI is (ie. being “impressed”) and at the same time be also unwilling to pay the costs / repercussions and want to ban / regulate it.

In this context, being deeply unimpressed with something is equivalent to calling that something “irrelevant” / “incapable”. If AI was no more impressive than it was before the LLM boom then there wouldn’t have been such a reaction against it to begin with. If anything, people being now opposed to modern AI is proof of how impactful AI has become.