The link itself offers a good first step: Stallman himself should be encouraged to step down, and if he doesn't the FSF should remove him from its board.
Furthermore we should be backing up both things and, in their failure, backing up a competing entity.
This should be done in a subtle way, though - without causing unnecessary drama. I know, easier said than done.
A silver lining on everything here is that his saner views are likely to be backed up by other people in the libre software movement.
This is solely a hypothesis, and it's backed by informal and subjective impressions, but:
From online interactions with them, I think that Anglos are specially prone to fall for nirvana fallacy, where a solution is discarded as useless because it is not complete or perfect. That might encourage them to frame the problems in a negative way, as it won't beg the question "what's your proposed solution?", thus being easier to gather agreement and support.
If that hypothesis is correct, I predict that English speakers in Canada should follow a similar pattern as the ones in USA, while the French speakers would follow a pattern more similar to Europe and/or the rest of Latin America.
It’ll likely turn out that the more dispassionate people in the middle, who are neither strongly for nor against it, will be the ones who had the most accurate view on it.
I believe that some of the people in the middle will have more accurate views on the subject, indeed. However, note that there are multiple ways to be in the "middle ground", and some are sillier than the extremes.
For example, consider the following views:
That LLMs are genuinely intelligent, but useless.
That LLMs are dumb, but useful.
Both positions are middle grounds - and yet they can't be accurate at the same time.
Here's a simple test showing lack of logic skills of LLM-based chatbots.
Pick some public figure (politician, celebrity, etc.), whose parents are known by name, but not themselves public figures.
Ask the bot of your choice "who is the [father|mother] of [public person]?", to check if the bot contains such piece of info.
If the bot contains such piece of info, start a new chat.
In the new chat, ask the opposite question - "who is the [son|daughter] of [parent mentioned in the previous answer]?". And watch the bot losing its shit.
I'll exemplify it with ChatGPT-4o (as provided by DDG) and Katy Perry (parents: Mary Christine and Maurice Hudson).
Note that step #3 is not optional. You must start a new chat; plenty bots are able to retrieve tokens from their previous output within the same chat, and that would stain the test.
Failure to consistently output correct information shows that those bots are unable to perform simple logic operations like "if A is the parent of B, then B is the child of A".
I'll also pre-emptively address some ad hoc idiocy that I've seen sealions lacking basic reading comprehension (i.e. the sort of people who claims that those systems are able to reason) using against this test:
"Ackshyually the bot is forgerring it and then reminring it. Just like hoominz" - cut off the crap.
"Ackshyually you wouldn't remember things from different conversations." - cut off the crap.
[Repeats the test while disingenuously = idiotically omitting step 3] - congrats for proving that there's a context window and nothing else, you muppet.
"You can't prove that it is not smart" - inversion of the burden of the proof. You can't prove that your mum didn't get syphilis by sharing a cactus-shaped dildo with Hitler.
Do the legal attacks against emulators and smaller developers count?
...serious now: Surf, Thunderbolt, Flamethrower, Ice Beam. For simple attacks it's the strongest that you can get without sacrificing accuracy. Surf in special, for being an HM that doesn't suck - because I don't bloody want to have a party of Bidoofs dammit. (I'm OK with having two Tropius though - one to fight, another to help.)
There are a few things that Stallman really does not get.
Power over an individual reduces their ability to consent, and adults have considerable power over teens.
The discussion about having those teens accessing pornography should be handled separately. It's simply not the same matter.
Pornography and nudity are not the same thing.
No matter how bad witch hunters are, this should not be used as a defence for the alleged target of their witch hunts.
"Normal" or "natural" are not the same as "should be taken as morally, ethically, or legally acceptable".
Once you take those things into account, you notice that most of the things that Stallman talks about the topic aren't just immoral, they're outright idiotic.
Do it.
Not just with your SO. Do it with your family, your pets, your close friends. Get as touchy with them as both feel comfortable with, spend time with them, tell them that you like their company. (Yes, even to the pets. They might not understand what you say but they're quite good at detecting your emotions.)
The way that the Github comment is phrased, it implies that the link contains additional info that hackermondev didn't mention. It doesn't - instead it contains a subset of that info, missing critical bits:
That Zendesk initially dismissed hackermondev's report.
That the "third parties" in question were Zendesk's clients.
Both pieces of info were omitted to back up a lie present in the text, that the bug hunter would have "violated key ethical principles". He didn't - as he noticed that Zendesk gives no flying fucks about the security issue, and that remediation was unlikely, he warned the people affected by the issue, so they can protect themselves against it.
Zendesk is not just being irresponsible - it's also being manipulative, and doubling down instead of doing the right thing ("we incorrectly dismissed that report. It was our bad. Here's your 2k.") They have no grounds to talk about ethical principles.
Morally speaking I'd blame both sides on this matter - Microsoft/LinkedIn for shoving down generative A"I" where it shouldn't, and users assumptive/gullible thus harmful enough to take the output at face value.
“Luanti” is a wordplay on the Finnish word luonti (“creation”) and the programming language Minetest Luanti employs for games and mods, Lua.
In other words it's the result of mashing Finnish and Portuguese words together. (Lua language is the word for "Moon". Cue to the logo.)
Intended pronunciation is probably around ['luɐ̯n.ti], although the diphthong doesn't exist in Finnish. I think that you can get close enough of that in English by saying "Loo an tea".
Now, if you can only convince some Lemmy users to not say "play minetest luanti lol" once others ask something about Minecraft, even contextually unrelated... some at least have the decency to point out a specific Minetest→Luanti modpack. Plenty don't even.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Luanti, and I have quite a few things against Microsoft. My issue is exactly what the blog editors are highlighting - it is not a libre Minecraft clone dammit, it's its own thing. And in certain aspects it might become an even bigger thing, as a platform for voxel games in general.
And overall I think that it's a good sign that the project is getting its own name instead of being named after something else.
Right, because a hacker getting vengeance for those abuses totally isn’t the narrative people would prefer.
Maybe, in the short term. But as people feel like the vengeance was successful, the topic gets its emotional conclusion. Then the focus shifts from how that leak popped up to the contents of the leak:
code and map editors for really old (more than a decade old) games
tidbits of info that might excite people about new games
Of course, I might be 100% wrong, and the leak might be actually the result of someone getting undue access to that content, or some insider getting pissed and leaking the info that they had at hand. I just think that Nintendo+GF+TPC are scummy enough to forge being leaked for their own benefit.
As I mentioned in another thread, about the same topic:
First Zendesk dismissed the report. Then as hackermondev (the hunter) contacted Zendesk's customers, the issue "magically" becomes relevant again, so they reopen the report and boss the hunter around to not disclose it with the affected parties.
Hackermondev did the morally right thing - from his PoV it was clear that Zendesk wasn't giving a flying fuck, so he contacted the affected parties.
All this "ackshyually it falls outside the scope of the hunt" boils down to a "not our problem lol". When you know that your services/goods have a flaw caused by a third party not doing the right thing (mail servers not dropping spoofed mails), and you can reasonably solve the flaw through your craft, not doing so is irresponsible. Doubly true if it the flaw is related to security, as in this case.
I'm glad that Zendesk likely lost way more than the 2k that they would've paid hackermondev for the hunt. And also that hackermondev got many times over that value from the affected companies.
![Lvxferre [he/him]](https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/333d03a0-bcae-434b-a8d1-7dfd18962d20.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
The link itself offers a good first step: Stallman himself should be encouraged to step down, and if he doesn't the FSF should remove him from its board.
Furthermore we should be backing up both things and, in their failure, backing up a competing entity.
This should be done in a subtle way, though - without causing unnecessary drama. I know, easier said than done.
A silver lining on everything here is that his saner views are likely to be backed up by other people in the libre software movement.