I see a few top level comments agreeing with the sentiment that users are being entitled or abusive, but what are they actually referring to? The linked image certainly has no evidence of such behavior. Someone who claims to be the developer filed a deletion request for the duckstation-git AUR package on the AUR and they say:

Every time, it turns into abuse towards me, as you can also see in the comments for the package.

I read through a few pages of the comments here and they're mostly people talking about fixing issues with the package, and what to do about the dev purposely breaking the build... I only found a single message that could be called abuse:

@eugene, not really but i suspect it's an uphill battle, check the commit message: https://github.com/stenzek/duckstation/commit/30df16cc767297c544e1311a3de4d10da30fe00c

FWIW, I'm moving to pcsx-redux, I rather run a little bit less advanced PSX emulator than software by this upstream asshat. Regardless, much thanks for maintaining the AUR package so far.

And even this is not a good example of what stenzek is describing. For one, it's obviously a reaction to stenzek's hostile changes and not the sort of user coming for support and being abusive that stenzek is talking about. The user is also explicitly moving to a different emulator and not expecting any change from duckstation.

This is really funny to me. If you keep optimizing this process you'll eventually completely remove the AI parts. Really shows how some of the pains AI claims to solve are self-inflicted. A good UI would have allowed the user to make this transaction in the same time it took to give the AI its initial instructions.

On this topic, here's another common anti-pattern that I'm waiting for people to realize is insane and do something about it:

• person A needs to convey an idea/proposal
• they write a short but complete technical specification for it
• it doesn't comply with some arbitrary standard/expectation so they tell an AI to expand the text
• the AI can't add any real information, it just spreads the same information over more text
• person B receives the text and is annoyed at how verbose it is
• they tell an AI to summarize it
• they get something that basically aims to be the original text, but it's been passed through an unreliable hallucinating energy-inefficient channel

Based on true stories.

The above is not to say that every AI use case is made up or that the demo in the video isn't cool. It's also not a problem exclusive to AI. This is a more general observation that people don't question the sanity of interfaces enough, even when it costs them a lot of extra work to comply with it.

Yeah, that section is bad.

For one, it's has classic vibe "if you want to keep the nazis out, you're the one who's exclusionary".

But also, how is refusing to engage on a platform "shutting out a significant portion of [the] community"? That sounds backwards to me. Blocking people from engaging with Debian on its own platforms would be shutting them out. The implication in the article is that Debian is obligated to be unconditionally present on every social platform its users might be on.

Who's gonna come at me with a $5 wrench because they really want my data, though? The attack I'm most likely to experience is someone stealing my laptop while I'm out traveling. That's what full filesystem encryption solves best.

This is very obviously false. With the default filters with all OSs shown, Arch has 0.20% marketshare and Linux has a total of 2.29%. That means Arch is about 8.73% of all Linux systems in the survey. If you select the Linux only results, then SteamOS appears as its own entry, alongside a few others like Flatpak. We can see two things here:

• SteamOS Holo is 36.47%. This was very clearly not counted as a part of Arch Linux in the all OSs tab.
• Under these filters, Arch is even higher at 9.7%.

What's impressive here is not just the confidence with which you called the article dishonest and uninformed while not spending half a minute to check your false assumption, but also how many people upvoted you. This was trivial to prove wrong and in fact people have already done that below. Why are people so eager to believe the article is wrong that they will jump to agree with a blatantly wrong comment while having no knowledge of the situation themselves?

All online ads should have to say which filters they matched to advertise to you.

According to the Signal foundation, the reverse is true. They claim they got banned for revealing that info.

https://signal.org/blog/the-instagram-ads-you-will-never-see/

No, there isn't really any such alternate timeline. Good honest causes are not profitable enough to survive against the startup scams. Even if the non-profit side won internally, OpenAI would just be left behind, funding would go to its competitors, and OpenAI would shut down. Unless you mean a radically different alternate timeline where our economic system is fundamentally different.

I have my own backup of the git repo and I downloaded this to compare and make sure it's not some modified (potentially malicious) copy. The most recent commit on my copy of master was dc94882c9062ab88d3d5de35dcb8731111baaea2 (4 commits behind OP's copy). I can verify:

• that the history up to that commit is identical in both copies
• after that commit, OP's copy only has changes to translation files which are functionally insignificant

So this does look to be a legitimate copy of the source code as it appeared on github!

Clarifications:

• This was just a random check, I do not have any reason to be suspicious of OP personally
• I did not check branches other than master (yet?)
• I did not (and cannot) check the validity of anything beyond the git repo
• You don't have a reason to trust me more than you trust OP... It would be nice if more people independently checked and verified against their own copies.

I will be seeding this for the foreseeable future.

"Enshitification" does not mean "I don't like it". It is specifically about platforms that start out looking too good to be true and turn to shit when the user base is locked in. The term is generally used for cases where the decline in quality was pre-planned and not due to external factors. Using the same term each time is, in my opinion, an appropriate way to point out just how common this pattern is.

So help me out here, what am I missing?

You're forgetting that not all outcomes are equal. You're just comparing the probability of winning vs the probability of losing. But when you lose you lose much bigger. If you calculate the expected outcome you will find that it is negative by design. Intuitively, that means that if you do this strategy, the one time you will lose will cost you more than the money you made all the other times where you won.

I'll give you a short example so that we can calculate the probabilities relatively easily. We make the following assumptions:

• You have $13, which means you can only make 3 bets: $1, $3, $9
• The roulette has a single 0. This is the best case scenario. So there are 37 numbers and only 18 of them are red This gives red a 18/37 to win. The zero is why the math always works out in the casino's favor
• You will play until you win once or until you lose all your money.

So how do we calculate the expected outcome? These outcomes are mutually exclusive, so if we can define the (expected gain * probability) of each one, we can sum them together. So let's see what the outcomes are:

• You win on the first bet. Gain: $1. Probability: 18/37.
• You win on the second bet. Gain: $2. Probability: 19/37 * 18/37 (lose once, then win once).
• You win on the third bet. Gain: $4. Probability: (19/37) ^ 2 * 18/37 (lose twice, then win once).
• You lose all three bets. Gain: -$13. Probability: (19/37) ^ 3 (lose three times).

So the expected outcome for you is:

$1 * (18/37) + 2 * (19/37 * 18/37) + ... = -$0.1328...

So you lose a bit more than $0.13 on average. Notice how the probabilities of winning $1 or $2 are much higher than the probability of losing $13, but the amount you lose is much bigger.

Others have mentioned betting limits as a reason you can't do this. That's wrong. There is no winning strategy. The casino always wins given enough bets. Betting limits just keep the short-term losses under control, making the business more predictable.

Exactly this. I can't believe how many comments I've read accusing the AI critics of holding back progress with regressive copyright ideas. No, the regressive ideas are already there, codified as law, holding the rest of us back. Holding AI companies accountable for their copyright violations will force them to either push to reform the copyright system completely, or to change their practices for the better (free software, free datasets, non-commercial uses, real non-profit orgs for the advancement of the technology). Either way we have a lot to gain by forcing them to improve the situation. Giving AI companies a free pass on the copyright system will waste what is probably the best opportunity we have ever had to improve the copyright system.

Well, realistically there is a good chance that this will turn out just fine business-wise. They don't care if they lose some engagement or if the quality goes to shit. It's all good, as long as it makes some money.

In my opinion, this sort of model should be considered anti-competitive. It has become apparent that these services operate on a model where they offer a service that is too good to be true in order to kill the competition, and then they switch to their actual profitable business plan. If you think about it, peertube is a much more sensible economical model with its federation and p2p streaming. But nobody has ever cared about it because huge tech giants offer hosting & bandwith "for free". The evil part of youtube is not the ads, its the fact that it allowed us to bypass them long enough for the entire planet to become dependent on it.