Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
blog.discourse.org
Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
1–10 of 90 posts
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#2> Large parts of it are delivered straight into the user’s browser on every request: JavaScript, …
Ooh, now I want to try convincing people to return from JS-heavy single-page apps to multi-page apps using normal HTML forms and minimal JS only to enhance what already works without it—in the name of security.
(C’mon, let a bloke dream.)
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#3> I want to be fair to Cal.com here, because I don’t think they’re acting in bad faith. I just think the security argument is a convenient frame for decisions that are actually about something else. […] Framing a business decision as a security imperative does a disservice to the open-source ecosystem that helped Cal.com get to where they are.
That sure sounds like bad faith to me.
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#4This article raises a lot of good points that strengthen the argument against keeping models away just because they're "too powerful". I remain disappointed to see AI corporations gloating about how powerful their private models are that they're not going to provide to anyone except a special whitelist. That's more likely to give attackers a way in without any possibility for defense, not the other way around.
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#5> Large parts of it are delivered straight into the user’s browser on every request: JavaScript, … Ooh, now I want to try convincing people to return from JS-heavy single-page apps to multi-page apps using normal HTML forms and minimal JS only to enhance what already works without it—in the name of security . (C’mon, let a bloke dream .)
There are a lot of things to hate in the Web3 world. Lack of back button form resubmission or redirect loops is a strange thing to dislike though.
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#6> I want to be fair to Cal.com here, because I don’t think they’re acting in bad faith. I just think the security argument is a convenient frame for decisions that are actually about something else. […] Framing a business decision as a security imperative does a disservice to the open-source ecosystem that helped Cal.com get to where they are. That sure sounds like bad faith to me.
Bad faith requires you to intend it badly, though, not just for it to be bad.
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#7This article raises a lot of good points that strengthen the argument against keeping models away just because they're "too powerful". I remain disappointed to see AI corporations gloating about how powerful their private models are that they're not going to provide to anyone except a special whitelist. That's more likely to give attackers a way in without any possibility for defense, not the other way around.
I think the "too powerful" is a convenient half-truth that also helps with marketing, and more importantly keeps the model from being distilled in the short term. They'll release it "to the masses" after KYC or after they already have the next gen for "trusted partners".
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#8> Open source creates a useful urgency: when your code is public, you assume it will be examined closely, so you invest earlier and more aggressively in finding and fixing issues before attackers do.
This should be the mentality of every company doing open source.Great points made.
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#9> I want to be fair to Cal.com here, because I don’t think they’re acting in bad faith. I just think the security argument is a convenient frame for decisions that are actually about something else. […] Framing a business decision as a security imperative does a disservice to the open-source ecosystem that helped Cal.com get to where they are. That sure sounds like bad faith to me.
Bad faith requires you to intend it badly, though, not just for it to be bad.
The above statement is claiming it likely is intended as something bad though. A convenient coverup.
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#10This article raises a lot of good points that strengthen the argument against keeping models away just because they're "too powerful". I remain disappointed to see AI corporations gloating about how powerful their private models are that they're not going to provide to anyone except a special whitelist. That's more likely to give attackers a way in without any possibility for defense, not the other way around.
I think the "too powerful" is a convenient half-truth that also helps with marketing, and more importantly keeps the model from being distilled in the short term. They'll release it "to the masses" after KYC or after they already have the next gen for "trusted partners".
I feel bad for Anthropic because they thought Persona was an acceptable KYC provider. It probably was a genuine mistake. I might have to leave them over that, if they think it's fun to ask me to give Peter Thiel my ID to persist indefinitely on Persona's servers!!!