My code repository should host my code, not go on dubious moral crusades. Glad I stayed on Github. Their ban on nebulously defined vibecoded projects is even more ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. If it was for me, i would ban anyone who use LLMs at all, so banning projects that « mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools » sounds very light to me, a reasonable middle-ground to rally everyone around. Are you sure you don't feel insulted and threatened because you're yourself a sloperator, so it feels personal to have others criticize your practices from a moral standpoint? (i…
Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
701–710 of 720 posts
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#702Earlier quoted context omitted.
Codeberg doesn't allow porn. Are you concerned about it because you don't know if half a nipple is okay? Or is that rule fine with you, actually?
I would like a clear process by which these things are judged in the event of disagreement, yes.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#703Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the set of acceptable uses for shared infrastructure not a political question? What's different between mining crypto on a free CI server, letting my cows eat all the grass at the park, or dumping industrial waste into the river?
Most people distinguish practical questions from normative questions. Practical questions may have some small political component, but usually it’s not useful or constructive to consider them as political issues. Some practical questions have an obvious political dimension, in which case it’s fair to consider that component, but people will often argue over whether the question is “political enough” to justify debate…
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#704Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I can't confirm comparisons to a "small/medium size bank" specifically (cause I have no idea how), I can perhaps clarify a bit Ethereum moved to proof-of-stake in 2022, and it was initially expected to use only 1% of the energy it used when it was proof-of-work. Turned out they were under-estimating the savings. According to studies by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance and the Crypto Carbon Ratings I…
There isn't really a technical difference that made PoS viable for Ethereum but not Bitcoin; it's a hard fork in either case. The differences are more cultural - - For better or worse, Ethereum has more centralized leadership (mainly the EF) which helps coordinate upgrades. Hard forks happen pretty regularly, and don't typically risk fracturing the community, unless the changes are particularly controversial (see Eth…
The point of PoW is that it resists monopolization unlike PoS.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#705Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that if you are the target demographic now, you’ll never know if you’re still next year or if you’ll be deplatformed and as such it makes for not a very reliable code host.
Slippery slope. AI and crypto are legitimetely controversial new technologies, though both have their uses. I can't imagine "offline mapping application" or "Linux CLI utility" or "self-hostable web app" being categories of software that become controversial in the future. Besides, migrating a repo to another Forgejo instance is simple enough.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#706Earlier quoted context omitted.
There isn't really a technical difference that made PoS viable for Ethereum but not Bitcoin; it's a hard fork in either case. The differences are more cultural - - For better or worse, Ethereum has more centralized leadership (mainly the EF) which helps coordinate upgrades. Hard forks happen pretty regularly, and don't typically risk fracturing the community, unless the changes are particularly controversial (see Eth…
The centralization and PoS makes Ethereum unsafe. What's the point of moving from a currency that a government can unilaterally control to a currency that the Ethereum board/stakers can unilaterally control? The point of PoW is that it resists monopolization unlike PoS.
In Vitalik's words: "If someone puts a gun to my head and tells me to write a hard-fork patch, I will definitely write it. If I publish a patch to delete a bunch of accounts, how many people here would download and install the update and switch to that chain? I see relatively few raised hands. This is called decentralization"
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#707Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or another example from where I live, there are two major grocery chains, one of which has owners who were recently convicted of insider trading and price fixing, and openly supports anti-LGBTQ movements. Shopping there is a political act implicitly supporting their political cause and accepting their crimes as okay, even though it might seem far removed. The trouble with this reasoning is that it's always an isola…
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, you and I know that. The other major chain is a consumer’s cooperative, which is owned by the members and has no stock dividend or major stock ownership. Instead ”dividends” are paid on basis of how much you money spent at the stores (somewhere around 0.5% is repaid as redeemable cheques I think). Each region of stores has yearly meetings where members are allowed to…
Why did you include the qualifier "under capitalism"? Is it ethical to be supporting Mao or Stalin rather than Rockefeller?
> The other major chain is a consumer’s cooperative, which is owned by the members and has no stock dividend or major stock ownership.
That's great, now how does it get you out of the problem? Not only do you have all the other members profiting from your consumption and by the numbers some of them will be undesirable, the coop itself is still part of the system. When they take out a loan to buy the building or pay rent to a landlord, the money goes to the bank/landlord. The coop has to pay the market price for the space in the city with the crooked zoning board, driving up profits for the real estate speculators paying them off. When the coop sells you a box of Cheerios, the profits still go to Nestlé, which has been involved in scandals on everything from baby formula to environmental pollution to labor practices. The other major companies have had their own scandals and the minor brands are often the same product in a different box.
And you're missing the most fundamental part of the problem: You don't actually know these people. That shareholder of the other grocery chain, were they convicted of insider trading because they did it, or because the prosecutor filed a charge they couldn't prove and then had to save face by offering a deal to pay a fine less than the legal expenses would be to vindicate themselves in court? The anti-LGBTQ movements, was it a billion dollars to a warlord murdering gay people, or a thousand dollars to a PAC that thinks there might be a reason women's sports exists separately from men's? These things are at least a difference in degree, and that's what matters when you're choosing between alternatives that are all less than perfectly pristine. Moreover, you would need to know not just all of these specific details about them, but all of these specific details about everyone else, before you could determine who is actually better on balance. Is that guy better or worse than Nestlé? When you go to the coop, do you know for every product which company makes it, and who they do business with? Nobody can hold all of that in their head and much of it isn't even public information.
And then we're back to the actual problem. Who is telling you who to hate? When nobody is perfect, anybody can be made into the villain just by selectively highlighting or exaggerating their flaws and ignoring the ones in the alternative.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#708Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm glad you feel relieved, and i'm sorry you lost time and energy in a collective where you don't fit in the end. Grade school social behaviour. Try to be a better person.
Well, i guess that's what i get for trying to sympathize with someone i disagree with. I have also been this person who doesn't fit in a group but only realizes too late. My bad for thinking we were having an interesting and honest conversation.
I grew up in a fundamentalist evangelical Christian community. I learned from a very young age what genuine empathy might look look vs the kind of "sympathy" whose goal is to buttress and support the pre-existing biases that the Church purveyed, and also all about in and out groups, and the application of abstract moralism over genuine personal relationships.
I don't think it's honest communication if the fundamental bias of one party is that the other party is "doing something wrong" and can never countenance any compromise, and defines that "wrong behaviour" as the foundation of exclusion from a community.
And that's what we have here with the section of the Codeberg community that took over there. Which you can see in the forum posts I referenced above. And they're now retroactively defining mores and values to make it seem like people like myself were always in the out-group.
We were not.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#709Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a sample, I'm still drinking my coffee. https://scholar.social/@silvermoon82@wandering.shop/11696402 ... "I'm sorry you caught abuse off the slop fondlers. Consent and boundary issues are inbuilt in their community." Or here, when someone tried to ask for similar clarification: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116880003584050912 "You're coming off similar to someone trying to probe the limits of consent instead o…
The first link has been removed (or may be private). The second link and quotes sound bad, but placed in context they actually sound more reasonable arguments to me. The "limits of consent" was somewhat misplaced, but in reply to someone arguing in bad faith about bad-faith interpretation of the rules. So it's not comparing LLMs use with rape, but comparing testing the limits/interpretations of rules with rape. The v…