83
Ladybird adopts Rust, with help from AI
(ladybird.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2026
83 points (83.2% liked)
Open Source
44833 readers
890 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I will copy my comment here:
However, I completely agree regarding the use of AI, especially in a project such as a browser engine.
EDIT: I accidentally replied to this comment instead of the one with the link to Drew DeVault's blog. My bad.
When they don't seem to know what definition the person is using for the word after writing an actual and seem confused why some of the quotes are against sexual abuse of 14 year olds, it's sorta hard to take their claims serious. IF DD's point is just people with the sexual preference deserve pity, then I agree. Just in the same way I think people with problems such as gambling or drug addictions should be pitied - it's not something they've chosen and it negatively effects their quality of life. Otoh, I don't think a gambling addict, for example, should be forgiven if they bankrupt their family and cause their children to grow up in poverty unnecessarily. Otoh, it it's a history of defending child abuse, then agreed there should be some discounting going on (but that seems the opposite of the quotes provided).
Either way, isn't the record for ladybird stuff in the git repo or something like that? Doesn't really matter what the source is that brought attention to it if you have the primary source (but people shouldn't be linking to problematic blogs - either link to the primary source or find/make another user-friendly secondary source).
That is appalling, and I don't mean to diminish the importance of this, but if the claims on fascism stand to scrutiny then it's not relevant, and if the claims don't stand to scrutiny they can be easily refuted.
Edit: and to be clear, I know DHH, I've read his blog and his social media activity, he's clearly a fascist.
Most of the information that you get about terrible people comes from terrible people because that is who knows them. Should we discount Trump accusations from Epstein because they came from a known pedo? No, pedos are the people that Trump hangs out with because that is what he is.
Given that Drew Devault has pity for pedophiles, the correct choice is to discount anything he says, much like you should discount anything Trump or Epstein claims without further primary sources of evidence from unaffiliated parties
This is not at all comparable to Trump/Epstein. Drew was only pitying pedophiles, not actual rapists This may come as a surprise to you, but there is a very clear difference (one is a choice, the other is not).
Nobody should pity pedophiles, you should want them removed from society permanently. If that's controversial, so be it
Then you’ve probably never really thought about what pedophilia actually means. My partner works with pedophiles in a clinical setting and there’s way more people with pedophile tendencies than you’d think (or at least than I thought). Most of them realise it’s a problem early on and seek help, some live in shame for most of their lives and only a tiny percentage actually does something to kids. Obviously, this shouldn’t happen at all (!!) but saying „all pedophiles should be removed from society“ is no solution to anything. Just to be sure: I have no idea what the ladybird-guy said about this topic, nor do I know who he is (or even what Ladybird is. I now know it’s a Browser, but that’s it).
Some people are truly sick and need a lot of help to change how their minds work. I respect your partner and their line of work. Hopefully they all can undergo thorough and intensive rehabilitative care as far away from society as possible until they are fit to be around vulnerable people.
With this line of thinking I'd rather remove you from society
You'd agree of course, that pedophiles should be removed from society? Is the idea of shaming pedophiles and pedo apologists some kind of line in the sand that shouldn't be crossed in your eyes?
No, I would most definitely not. In the same way that I would not agree that we should remove all men from society just because they make up the majority of rapists.
Yes.
Right, all rapists should be removed from society, regardless of gender
The thing You don't seem to understand is that rapists committed rape and need to be punished. Pedophilia is a disorder that if it's manifesting in a person may never have any impact on another person. Why? Because there are different ways it can affect somebody with the disorder. For some it might be a emotional thing, completely isolated from the world. For some it might just be a though of realizing that they are attracted to a person that is too young.
ACTING on these impulses is the problem. And that becomes way more likely when people don't realize their pedophilic tendencies because they surpress any reflected thoughts since it's a taboo to even consider that this disorder exists. And seeking help is even harder for the same reasons. So yes, Public shaming of EVERYONE that has this disorder is definitely not a smart move. Shaming and punishing people that act on it: yes please.
Yeah? For example, I don't pity people with extremely violent urges, I want them far away from peaceful civilized society. Pedos just the same, no pity, just the desire for them to be very far away from everyone else.
Innocent until proven guilty also apply to though crime.
You might want to separate people that are a potential hazard but that sets a dangerous precedent.
Also: somebody that might be easily angered and might hit somebody in a bar when drunk should be locked away preemptively?
That wasn't the point here. You should work on your reading comprehension. Unless you genuinely believe that all men are potential rapists that should preventively be removed from society? In which case I would just give up explaining this to someone who has the mental capacity of a toddler.
I genuinely believe that all rapists should be removed from society, regardless of gender. It wasn't very complicated of a point, surely you're smart enough to pick up on that, without resorting to ad hominem.
Jesus fucking Christ, are you just ragebaiting or are you genuinely this bad at comprehending stuff? I am talking about the equivalent of your original point, that being the PREEMPTIVE removal of ALL MEN from society due to the fact that they are the main perpetrators of rape, despite the overwhelming majority of them not being rapists at all.
Is this clear now, or should I send your Mum over to explain it to you?
I never made that point, so I didn't address it. After you said "I’d rather remove you from society" it was pretty clear to me you were letting emotions get the best of you. Again, no need for ad hominem depictions.
Their point is that attraction doesn't entail crime or even willingness to commit crimes. Punishing someone for a thought crime is unenforceable and absurd.
I wouldn't consider resident rehabilitation punishment, more of an opportunity really, but it still serves the purpose of keeping those people away from the rest of society and reintegrating them once they're fit to be around vulnerable individuals
You said:
(Emphasis mine)
You backpedaled after being called out, and it's particularly annoying because removing permanently can also mean extermination. But giving you grace and only interpreting it as rehabilitation (assuming the individual is deemed to no longer be a danger to others), it's still impossible to enforce until there's a crime.
Someone who undergoes resident rehabilitation as a pedophile and is successfully treated results in someone who is no longer a pedophile. That permanently removes the pedophile from society.
You can't make someone "no longer a pedophile" any more than you can make someone "no longer gay/lesbian/bisexual/[insert any other sexual orientation]".
A sexual preference towards men, women, or nonbinary isn’t a mental illness. A sexual preference to children is. Refer to this for further explanation.
Does a condition being considered a mental illness magically make it curable? Was homosexuality curable when it was still classified as a mental disorder? Not that I know of. But feel free to show me a reputable study claiming that is indeed possible to cure pedophilia or paraphilias in general.
Of course not, an individual with such a disorder can be successfully treated to reduce if not fully eliminate pedophilic urges or inclinations. Medications and treatments are available to reduce sexual libido and urges in afflicted individuals, as well as to rebuild the mental pathways from pedophilic to normophilic, without altering sexual orientation. A resource to consider is the Handbook of Clinical Sexuality for Mental Health Professionals by Stephen B Levine, Candace B Rice, Stanley E Althof. For a study, as you've requested, feel free to give Changes in Sexual Arousal as Measured by Penile Plethysmography in Men with Pedophilic Sexual Interest a cursory reading.
Of course your LLM response provides a study that is heavily flawed in it's methodology and has been criticised a number. of. times..
I'm not convinced, neither are most experts in this field of research.
No LLMs used here, just regular old fashioned search engines and common sense. Not that I expect that to convince you :D I wouldn't bother wasting an LLM's time on this, it's much more entertaining not to. If you feel so inclined, I'd be curious what your take on antiandrogen medications, serotonergic agents or gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists for treatment is, since it seems effective in the limited trials that have taken place. Of course, there should always be more thorough research into the capacity for full remission.
Reducing sex drive doesn't change who you are attracted to even if you change how penises respond, at least not from antiandrogens (my experience being with spiro+estrodial). But as far as I know, at least for sex crimes as a whole, variation in sex drive is a poor explainer of who will or will not sexually abuse. Not sure on the details of the regimens being pushed here, but it seems sorta like you want men to be forcibly transitioned (as much as a jokingly supported that as an egg, I'm actually not a fan of the idea on a mass scale)? And no clue what your suggestion for women are. All to achieve a different penis volume?
You have demonstrated no common sense at all and a complete lack of knowledge in your previous comments, so yeah, you won't convince me that this was not written by an LLM.
Antiandrogens (and by extension GnRH antagonists) have the bad side effect of bone loss/osteoporosis, so not really a good long term solution, and like SSRIs, they just reduce the sexual drive as a whole. I don't know where you see any effectiveness here.
Yes, you did make that point, by claiming that "we should remove all pedophiles from society". I gave you an equivalent example to show you how stupid that is. And you didn't just "not address it", you completely spun it around to fit your narrative. That whole point was your emotional knee-jerk reaction, I was simply throwing it back at you.
It's pretty simple, thorough and extensive rehabilitation to treat and rid individuals of the severe mental illness, such that they're fit for reintroduction into society. That's how rehab works.
It's not a mental illness. If anything, it's a mental disorder or just a sexual orientation. And when exactly have we ever been able to get rid of a sexual preference? Is conversion therapy your goal? That shit doesn't work.
You seem to be making a lot of wrong assumptions here. Because just like men in the rapists example, pedophiles overwhelmingly are fit for society and don't need treatment or rehabilitation in the first place. And for the ones that do feel like they need help, it would actually be better to not shame and stigmatize them to actually give them the chance of trusting someone to talk about it.
Those are the same thing. "A mental disorder, also referred to as a mental illness, a mental health condition, or a psychiatric disability"
Most mental illnesses can be successfully treated, many live to tell the tale. Drug addicts who become treated are no longer addicts, sufferers of emotional cognitive disorders who become successfully treated are no longer emotionally suffering. Some disorders are treatment resistant, and afflicted individuals undergo life-long consistent maintenance therapy.
A sexual preference towards men, women, or nonbinary isn't a mental illness. A sexual preference to children is.
I thought I've read somewhere that "mental disorder" is a broader term, whereas "mental illness" was mostly referring to conditions that impact general behaviour and functioning. But okay, let's use them synonymously, in which case it's still not a severe mental illness that can be cured.
Even if go with this assumption, that doesn't mean it requires treatment (which is not really possible anyway), let alone forcefully.