People go through all this trouble to host convoluted chat systems, and all this time IRC is right there. There's modern servers like Ergo and modern clients like Halloy (or for the JavaScript addicts: Convos, The Lounge, Kiwi, ...) providing all the multi-device history sharing and emoji reactions you could need. All on top of a super simple, extremely battle tested protocol.
But according to https://ircv3.net/software/clients, none of the clients you mentioned actually support emoji reactions (draft/react), and other features like multi-line messages and image uploads are likewise extremely limited in server/client support. So, for the time being, you can't use these features if you want to actually be interoperable with existing IRC users and their clients. Sounds like if you want decentralized, Matrix is still the better bet.
These weird anti-Graphene posts confuse me. I use GrapheneOS, fwiw, and I believe some things the project does (like its attacks on F-Droid) are misguided for orthogonal reasons.
However, it all makes sense from the perspective of Graphene not attempting to be a general purpose OS like Lineage, but explicitly a security focused OS. Security is often in conflict with what the average consumer wants, and they can go use Lineage or whatever.
It's like writing lots of comments complaining about OpenBSD devs coming across as grumpy and refusing to support Bluetooth. That is part of their value proposition! You're just not the target audience and that is okay.
Most if not all of their attacks are inexcusable. Calling a competing OS, CalyxOS, nazi sympathizers is unacceptable and when I first read that I started seeing the red flags.
Nothing is open about GrapheneOS aside from the source code. We officially know nothing about the leadership, their current plans, what their finances look like or even who this new mysterious OEM is.
not much in the parent comment is anti-graphene. it's probably the best available option for a mobile OS right now.
the sentiment is that the dev team - specifically one zealot - does not engage politely/rationally/transparently in any public forum, which undermines the image of the OS as a whole.
I've only seen the carrier locked phones and long-term contracts in a handful of countries. I've lived in a lot of countries on three continents.
In many places the default is prepaid SIMs with separately purchased phones. Sometimes the prepaying can be automated (e.g. in Russia), sometimes it involves you physically going to a shop once a month or so (e.g. in Egypt).
There are many pragmatic reasons to do what Anthropic does, but the whole "soul data" approach is exactly what you do if you treat "the void" as your pocket bible. That does not seem incidental.
No. It was obvious from the title that this was about the UK, and also why should they - American sites don't indicate this either, and they have no monopoly on the language.
Writing the license is the easy part, the challenge is in making it legally actionable. If AI companies are allowed to get away with "nuh uh we ran it through the copyright-b-gone machine so your license doesn't count" then licenses alone are futile, it'll take lobbying to actually achieve anything.
My point is that you could write the most theoretically bulletproof license in the world and it would count for nothing under the precedent that AI training is fair use, and can legally ignore your license terms. That's just not a problem that can be solved with better licenses.
That's not MIT-compatible, it's the opposite. MIT-compatible would mean that code under your license could be relicensed to MIT. Similar to how the GPL is not MIT-compatible because you cannot relicense GPL code under MIT.
I can ask Claude to generate you one right now. It will be just a bunch of bullshit words no matter how much work you put into writing them down (like any other such license).
From where I grew up, it's a four-hour drive to the nearest supermarket.
If you're in the US, you're probably not used to driving long distances on roads that aren't basically perfectly straight and four times the width of your car. You wouldn't enjoy driving here.
I spent some time on Google Maps, and the furthest spot I managed to find from a town was about 35km. Note that I didn't say anything about supermarkets - this is a thread about car reliability, so the context is how far you can be from a town where it's reasonable to expect that someone can help you with your car.
The Scottish highlands have a population density comparable to the Mountain West. As someone who grew up in the mountain west, the highlands have a very similar feel.
You can sell the phones alright, and they might even work, but the fact is that participation in society - especially if you live in a city - will be much harder without Android/iOS.
Note, not impossible: You can always carry cash to avoid phone-based bank payments (which would be needed at e.g. my local farmer's market, where nobody has a card payment terminal), some taxi services (Yandex Go for example) provide a web view with some of the features, you can open map services in the browser ...
But for the browser-based cases the experience will be even worse than the standard app experience, and friction is overall much higher.
As a result, only a very small fraction of nerds are committed enough to buy and use these devices. You then have a chicken&egg problem about getting a third option to work.
The only way this has been done semi-successfully in recent years is Huawei's HarmonyOS - and they did it by way of a) already being an absolutely massive phone company, and b) keeping around an expensive Android-compatibility core for many years.
Yes, the chicken and the egg problem. But here is the thing, the more adopters there are the more likely to get support. Not to mention the userbase will be mainly in the EU.
The EU is entirely dependent on US services, which don't much care about a fringe phone OS some fraction of people in the EU use. It's like adding duck/egg, crow/egg and other similar problems into the dependency web, too.
The European Commission, as well as many individual countries, are starting to see that as a problem in need of urgent solving, as they've realized it's strategic suicide for a country to be dependent on the goodwill of the (potentially, now turned likely, and going for almost declared) enemy.
reply