Oh I completely agree with that, just the jump to “a flawed model leaked” is too far. There’s already enough crap to mock, no need to make up additional stuff.

It’s bullshit. What leaked was their commandline tool source code (named “claude code”) - very juicy in itself but has nothing to do with their models.

Apparently the account got flagged, not even the repo itself.

By now I think they left the driver wheel to chatgpt and hope for the best.

It’s not connected. Don’t get me wrong I agree with your sentiment - but law doesn’t care about ethics or morale or anything.

“Public doctrine” is nothing they exists, legally. Toy are wasting bandwidth of change.org .

No the claim is dubious because it’s equalling “written on bank note” with “must be basis for legal discussions”.

They (US politics) literally do though, right? At least that’s my impression as a non US person.

If my understanding is correct it would need an overhaul of the constitution to change that, right? (The part about representatives of states cascading to select the representatives who then select the boss).

I’m quite uneducated though in US politics so perhaps I’ve got something completely wrong!

Again: depends on the legal system that statement is not that easy in that generic form.

Ik specifically thinking about the situation in which a human no longer can communicate what they want:

In Germany there is the legal concept of transferring this kind of decision power in case you yourself are no longer able to do that. The “pulling the plug” situation: the individual can no longer state their wishes directly concerning the situation but left a binding document who has the decision power in their stead.

Now you could argue that this also is “the human has to want it” as they wanted the other person to have this life and death power.

As someone else said: helping humans find a dignified death is legal in some countries.

Your second point is more complicated though: I don’t know the laws in a lot of countries but where I’m from animals are strictly treated as property - emotional connection isn’t taken into strong consideration at all when it comes to assessing their value when it comes to legal fights but they are treated like a distinct thing different from both humans and objects in a lot of other cases (e.g. dedicated laws like “unnecessary” animal cruelty is forbidden ).

About the reason you can discuss as much as you want, the two arguments I’ve stumbled across are:

1. there must not be a distinction in terms of value because that value must be purely subjective and cannot be assessed.

2. There is no objective way to classify animals based on emotional connection and therefore the law can’t create categories.

Culturally we treat animals like different to humans all the time - even your dog is not treated “family” to the extreme a child would (think of child protection laws and what that would mean if they’d apply to a dog or a hamster). And now expand this to find a definition which covers both a cow someone has as a beloved pet or a meat animal.

Note that I’m trying to not say wether this is “right” or “wrong”: morale categories and laws have some overlap but they are quite lose as soon as you get specific.

My primary source was an interview with a judge who went into an hour long discussion about how complex the relation between animals and the law is and how “emotional connection” and the need for the law to be objective and repeatable are an inherent contradiction.

In short:

It’s a very tough question because there isn’t the one correct answer. Law, morality and personal subjectivity collide and make a mess out of us.

Hey,

Person here who despises electron apps in part because of the memory footprint and in part because I don’t like neither chromium nor node.js - personal preference mainly.

From your description I have the feeling that it’s unclear to your user base if electron is set or up to debate. There is only a thin line between “explaining” and “defending”.

In terms of communication: “We’re using electron as foundation because it allows us to focus on development. We’ve considered alternatives like Tauri and XYZ and opted in favor of electron.”

If there are situations that might make you rethink state those as well (“if someone provides a proof of concept via XYZ that an alternative is faster by y% while enabling us to still use (your core libraries and languages) we might consider a refactor.”

If you’d engage with me after an electron rant on your codebase you’d just raise my hope that I might change your mind! Don’t give people hope, don’t feed the trolls and do your thing!

Just please be honest with yourself: your app doesn’t use “50 to 60 MB”, it uses 500MBish on idle because of your choice. And that’s okay as long as you as developer say that it is.

Yes, this is an unpopular opinion - and at least for me not for the reason you seem to think!

“that’s the way the world is” has way more “boomer vibe” than you can imagine. Even if you add “now”. Why should I give up just because things go to shit? Why should I retire into acceptance and ignorance?

Your acceptance is surrender, your annoyance a sign that a party of you knows that.