Their own software has become so bloated that now they're pivoting to bandwagon marketing. Soon some corporate enshittification platform will buy them.
Thanks for this great comment that adds tremendous value to the discussion.
Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
71–80 of 90 posts
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
This should be a mentality of every company building products :)
Indeed. All software products you can get your hands on are open source - compiled code is only little more difficult to read than source code, but not that much if you learn how. Which is why ~all companies switches to offering software as a service, so this mindset doesn't apply :).
Ghidra+LLMs really does make this a matter of time if we’re not already there yet.
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. All software products you can get your hands on are open source - compiled code is only little more difficult to read than source code, but not that much if you learn how. Which is why ~all companies switches to offering software as a service, so this mindset doesn't apply :).
> but not that much if you learn how. Yesterday I threw some ghidra output into an LLM with very little context and got what seemed to be a reasonable run down of the original back. We're probably knocking on the door of being able to throw a binary into an LLM and getting the original program back unless there is active obfuscation done. It is a very exciting time for anyone who likes playing old, abandoned and bugg…
As long as obfuscated code is isomorphic to its raw form, it’s sure to be decompilable. As for how much divergence is possible (in obfuscation), my intuition that it is very finite by definition.
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#74too bad. i wish they would go closedsource so that maybe everyone would stop using it. it's dogshit for countless reasons. including: - refuses to even load on browser engines older than 2 years. for a webforum that's absolutely appaling. there's a barebones non-JS version. but it only loads for individual threads (not the forum homepage or anything else), so they must be linked to directly (e.g from a websearch engi…
> must be the virtue signalling I wish you folks could understand how clownish you sound.
I do feel like this sinks a post of otherwise reasonable complaints. What "virtue signaling" is discourse even being accused of?
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I'm saying is that even lying is only bad faith depending on the intent of the lie. That doesn't mean others can't be upset regardless of the lie's intent, but I wouldn't say all lies are bad faith.
> I wouldn't say all lies are bad faith. No one said this.
I'm saying this: I don't think a lie can be in good faith by definition. Trying to make someone believe something you know isn't the truth is fundamentally bad faith.
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I'm saying is that even lying is only bad faith depending on the intent of the lie. That doesn't mean others can't be upset regardless of the lie's intent, but I wouldn't say all lies are bad faith.
> even lying is only bad faith depending on the intent of the lie And the intent here is to intentionally mislead, so how is that not bad faith?
Yeah, I'm pretty confused about what point they're trying to make. Given that a lie is intentionally saying something untrue, there are three possibilities:
1. A is lying to B, and they know that B doesn't know the truth. The intent is to make them believe the lie, which is intentionally misleading them and bad faith
2. A is lying to B, and they aren't sure if B knows it's a lie. The intent is to make them believe the lie, which is intentionally misleading them and bad faith
3. A is lying to B, and they know for sure B knows it's a lie. The intent is either to provoke an emotional reaction from either B or someone observing (which is bad faith), or performative for others who will see the lie and might fall into categories 1 or 2, which is bad faith
I don't understand how anyone could plausibly argue that lying to someone intentionally isn't bad faith. Maybe I'm the one falling for category three here
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#77Does someone know which tools they are using for the multi day code ai code review?
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wouldn't say all lies are bad faith. No one said this.
I'm saying this: I don't think a lie can be in good faith by definition. Trying to make someone believe something you know isn't the truth is fundamentally bad faith.
I thought you said Intentionally lying and bad faith is by definition trying to trick people. But you said Intentionally lying is bad faith and by definition trying to trick people.
I thought your point was intent. Most people would not say to hide Jews from Nazis was bad faith I think.
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I concur that most web sites could use less JavaScript. And a lot of (but not all) cosmetic uses for JavaScript can be done in CSS. Of course for web apps (as distinct from web sites) most of what we do would be impossible without JavaScript. Infinite scrolling, maps (moving and zooming), field validation on entry, asynchronous page updates, web sockets, all require JavaScript. Of course JavaScript is abused. But it'…
Infinite scrolling is JavaScript abuse. Pagination is much better for letting people keep track of their progress and time.
Infinite scrolling is just a feature. It can be used for good or evil.
Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I concur that most web sites could use less JavaScript. And a lot of (but not all) cosmetic uses for JavaScript can be done in CSS. Of course for web apps (as distinct from web sites) most of what we do would be impossible without JavaScript. Infinite scrolling, maps (moving and zooming), field validation on entry, asynchronous page updates, web sockets, all require JavaScript. Of course JavaScript is abused. But it'…
> web apps See, that's where we went wrong. IMO the web is for web sites . Co-opting the browser for full applications has led to the significant degradement of modern software. If we must have a "write once, run anywhere" approach for modern development, can we at least use WASM bytecode and build a dedicated runtime that doesn't use the browser for GUI output?
You are of course entitled to your opinion. And you're free to code apps for any platform or language you like.
Clearly though the world is using the web platform for writing applications. And I for one like the fact I can book a car, buy a secondhand book, or leave a restaurant review from a generic place that just works on all my devices.