You have probably (deservedly!) blocked me by now, but in case you have not, I apologize from my other comment. Apparently the standard you all have in the lemmy.ml memes community is different from other memes communities, so what looked to me like you were posting a meme that was completely inappropriate was a complete misunderstanding on my part. I have unsubscribed from this community to preclude the possibility of future misunderstandings.

I guarantee this will have a comment 😄

You do know that, when you edit your comment to pretend that you had predicted something in advance, that there is a timestamp showing when you made the change, right?

It's interesting that there are comments that say things like:

The cult [emphasis mine] of Rust developers just won’t give up.

We like the Rust, we hate the cuck [emphasis mine] license. Simple.

Going from GPL to a weaker license was a terrible idea and whoever supported it should be held accountable. [emphasis mine]

Whoever is suggesting and perpetuating MIT over GPL needs to be tarred and feathered [emphasis mine].

And yet you have decided that it is my comments calling this out as being the trollish ones, as if I were the one being unreasonable.

Right, and likewise just because your code was written in C99 does not make it any better than assembly code that accomplished the same task, as long as it was written carefully and audited.

So you do not like the uutils developers because they think that Rust is the solution to everything?

I would rather be a moron than someone who calls for others to be tarred and feathered over their choice of an open source software license of all things.

See, this is why I prefer the (terribly named) "Many Worlds" interpretation. Unlike the Copenhagen interpretation, it does not privilege measurement over other types of interactions between systems. That is, the wave function never collapses, it only seems to because you, as the observer, are part of the system.

The easy way to see this is to imagine that you put some other experimenter inside of a box. When they perform a measurement, from your perspective the wave function has not yet collapsed, but from the experimenter's perspective the wave has collapsed. Essentially, it is as if the system in a box has branched so that there are multiple copies of the experimenter within, one who sees each possible measurement result, but because you are outside of it you could, in theory, reverse the measurement and unite the two branches. However, it is important to understand that the concept of branches is just a visualization; it is nothing inherent to the theory, and when things get even slightly more complicated than the situation I have described, they do not meaningfully exist at all.

(Also, if it seems implausible that a macroscopic system in a box could remain in a superposition of multiple states, you actually are not wrong! However, the reason is not theoretical but practical: any system inside the box will interact thermally with the box itself, so unless it is perfectly insulated you cannot help but interact with it and therefore measure it yourself. This keeps going until essentially the entire world cannot help but perform a measurement of your system. Preventing this tendency from screwing things up is one of the things that makes building quantum computers hard.)

The title of the post, as opposed to the title of the executive order, is very misleading: this executive order only applies to the AIs that are allowed to be procured and used by the federal government, not to all AI in general.

(Having said that, the underlying motivation behind it is still nonsense, just as it has been for all of the other executive orders.)

DEAR LORD PEOPLE, SOMETIMES THERE IS NOT A DEEPER MESSAGE AND IT'S JUST A DUMB JOKE!

Seriously, check out the other comics by this artist. They just like absurdist humor, like this one:

Alternatively, instead of reading a Phoronix article that has a couple of short snippets from a much longer blog post, you can read the original blog post yourself to see the full context.

Edit: Also, it is worth noting that the author of the original blog post had previously written another relatively recent post criticizing the way in which Wayland was developed, so it's not like they are refusing to see its problems.