Yeah, we hate that too man. It's just not the topic at hand.

Why do you hate it? It’s a great way for average person to get share in the profits of giant corporations.

Paint.net is closed source

I'm on team Pluto here but no, the problem was that Mike Brown found like a dozen 'planets' and no one wanted to deal with that. It was closer to preventing someone from making a name for themselves.

We could simply define Pluto as the edge of our Solar System and everything beyond its orbit a Kuiper Belt Object. There's nothing wrong with that.

Why bother coming up with a pseudo-scientific requirements list for planets when these don't work for a large number of cases.

That would include Ceres, Quaoar and Orcus as planets.

It's really hard to come up with a definition of a planet that includes Pluto but doesn't include Orcus. Orcus is very close to a mirror of Pluto that is 120 degrees out of phase. Even in name: Orcus is the Roman name for the Greek god Pluto.

The three I listed are inside Pluto's orbit. Part of the time for the latter 2.

If you want to say that Pluto is a planet for historical reasons, that's fine. Just don't try to invent pseudo-scientific nonsense to justify it at the same time you are decrying psuedo-scientific nonsense.

> We could simply define Pluto as the edge of our Solar System and everything beyond its orbit a Kuiper Belt Object. There's nothing wrong with that.

There is because Pluto is inside the Kuiper Belt and just as much a part of it as all the other "planets" in there. There's nothing wrong with defining our solar system as having 8 planets plus a bunch of other stuff.

> We could simply define Pluto as the edge of our Solar System and everything beyond its orbit a Kuiper Belt Object.

A Kuiper Belt Object not being a part of Solar System doesn't make any sense. A star system is the star + all objects that orbit it. Why would you arbitrarily exclude some objects that orbit the Sun?

Because it doesn't seem to be actually going to FOSS

You're going to have to clarify that rather bold statement.

You see

https://git.outfoxxed.me/quickshell/quickshell (GNU LGPL 3)

https://github.com/hyprwm/Hyprland (BSD)

https://github.com/jdx/mise (MIT)

are not really foss

Unless I have to interact with their software in which case I've lost the right to repair it.

You are literally paying them to be concerned about your code.

Paying to store my code, not paying for them to police who or what wrote it or assisted in writing it.

Nah - all my repos are private, they mostly contain my configs and I am not paying money to read these insanities about tools I use.

As much as I like paying to escape a capitalistic monstrosity such as github, they still seem to be more … mentally stable, for the lack of a better term. At least you are not at a whim of some BDFL or an aggressive minority of radicals. It is quite sad, that we have a choice of enshittifaction and radicalization only, with nothing in between just providing good service to paying customers.

> It is quite sad, that we have a choice of enshittifaction and radicalization only (...)

Maybe this is a question of point of view? I find github's stance on slop extremely radical (and totally contrary to my own values). At the same time, github is obviously enshittified, so I don's see the point in using it anymore.

You still have gitlab, which is some kind of middle ground. And if you only need to store private config files, you can host a private instance of forgejo--or a bare git repo--for much less than a sourcehut subscription. I hope you find your place! (still, I'm curious why your config files are AI slop, but that is another subject)

It just sucks having to pick between two extremes.

I moved to SourceHut from Github when their site stopped functioning without a JITed JavaScript engine or when you block certain AI elements. The bloat just got insane. Now it seems like I have to move again since SourceHut moved too far in the other extreme by embracing "minimalism" not only of their service but also of their users.

> you can [self-]host

I used GitHub and then SourceHut precisely so I don't have to do this.

For a simple reason - I may one-shoot an emacs function (or several) I need for my config with claude. So, it is technically slope. I am also against self-hosting - I don’t have time and patience for it. IT is not a valuable hobby for me anymore, with LLM or without.

I guess, back to github :)

In the etymological sense there's a difference. There is no practical difference to the people calling for it though.

'Roma are like wolves, we should shoot wolves' isn't exactly subtle.

'OSS "became" too entangled with political activism'

Statements dreamed up by people who get gilliganed by a coconut every morning.

>This tier, or the one just after it, will power hundreds to thousands of new AI employees at every company.

>And companies are in no way, shape, or form prepared for this transition.

so, uh, what's the business model here?

There's no actual IQ test. Any data you've ever seen using "IQ" to predict academic outcomes is actually just using prior academic scores bent into the shape of a symmetric normal distribution.

"academic outcomes predict academic outcomes" would be wholly uninteresting if "academic outcomes" was one thing, but it isn't.