XLE appears to be completely focused on my opinion regarding AI, he has never commented on anything else I've done or said here on the Fediverse. So I think it's safe to view all of his attempts at insulting me in that context.

And it's not like Reddit is exactly a hotbed of pro-AI sentiment either, for that matter. Though it does tend to be less extreme in my experience, I suspect because it's just got a larger population so social bubbles are harder to enforce.

If you'd define what you mean by "troll-like behaviour" then maybe I'd say something more directly about it. As far as I can tell XLE just means I hold positions that are not always popular in the communities I comment in. That's certainly true.

He's stopped calling me a bot and accusing me of being "from Reddit", at least, so that's progress. I mean, I am "from Reddit" - I have a link back to my Reddit profile right in my Fediverse profile. Never knew why that was supposed to be a bad thing.

"Despite?" That's the goal.

Death camps rarely start out being called "death camps" at the outset.

Hey now, maybe these are false positives too.

Finally Russian air defenses manage to shoot something down.

The problem is probably hidden in the "simply" part. A huge IT infrastructure built on one tech stack isn't easy to migrate to another one, it'd cost a lot and all those things that currently "just work" might stop working. And then you're on a new tech stack and who knows whether it'll work as well as Oracle has been so far? As long as Oracle keeps the lights on their existing customers will likely stick with them out of inertia.

That won't necessarily get them new customers, though, and if those new customers instead pick some other tech stack they now face the same challenge trying to get them to come to Oracle. So we'll see how things work out for them in the long run.

And now for my not-silly response. :)

The "corporate death penalty" is called "judicial dissolution" and (in the US at least) proceeds similar to chapter 7 bankruptcy. In the 18th and 19th centuries, state legislatures issued corporate charters with specific public mandates. If a corporation abused its power, the state revoked its charter. This is pretty rare these days, both because corporate charters are handled differently (they usually don't have specific mandates) and because of the awareness of collateral damage to actual innocents. Not shareholders, but employees getting laid off, pensions being destroyed, and so forth. So nowadays the preferred approach is to focus on punishments aimed at making the corporation change its future behaviour. Forced firing of executives responsible, massive fines to make illegal activities unprofitable, and so forth.

There are still judicial dissolutions but they're usually targeted fraudulent non-profits, shell corporations, and organized crime fronts. No "innocents" get hurt in those cases since they don't have many actual employees.

A few prominent cases where real corporations were judicially destroyed are Arthur Andersen, BCCI, and Purdue Pharma. Those ones weren't directly ordered dissolved, though, the court just revoked licenses or placed restrictions on them that made it impossible for them to continue operating and so they immediately went bankrupt.

But think about all the innocent shareholders! Is it reasonable to punish them simply because something they directly funded and personally benefit from is doing heinously evil things? They laundered their responsibility fair and square through a board of directors.

Miranda rights are only required during a custodial interrogation, which means you are in police custody (arrested or not free to leave), and the police are actively questioning or interrogating you. If the police arrest 50 people at a protest, put them in a van, process them at the precinct, and never ask them a single question about their conduct, the police never actually need to read them their rights.

Any self-incriminating statements you make before your rights are read to you generally cannot be used against you in court as primary evidence (this is the Exclusionary Rule). Note that that's as primary evidence, though. If you mention the kilogram of illicit substances hidden in your shoes before they Mirandize you they can't use that statement in court, but they sure can use that kilogram of illicit substances as physical evidence.

So other than the bare minimum of what the law says you have to say, always remember that it's Friday.

And XLE is obsessed with me personally, which is really quite a bit sadder. I've never made a secret of my enthusiasm for AI.

As part of a general ban on "Content that harms the reputation of Codeberg."

Sounds like a pretty unreliable place to be hosting projects at this point. Any time the mob turns on a new target you could suddenly be in violation.

Edit: over at an issue where clarification of these rules are being asked for, a moderator gave his "personal" interpretation of them and admitted other moderators might interpret them differently. So I guess it depends on which moderator is making the decision and what they feel like at that particular moment.