I think lying to investors is essentially what she was convicted of. You can make the argument that Musk believes what he says. Or you can say that he stayed clear of methods that make malice very obvious like forging documents.

But I don't think the comparison is completely far fetched. Let's take stuff like his "funding secured" tweet, the "2016 autopilot promo video", his "Solar Roof" stunt do come a little close to outright lying to investors for my taste. Not quite the level of forging documents, but pretty dishonest.

That's part of it, but if you lived through months of news about where milk is unsafe and how to wash your vegetables and how much iodine to take. You'd maybe think differently too.

All the "oh, but it's different now, it's really safe" implies that the scientist at the time of the Chernobyl disaster didn't give assurance that it's totally safe either.

I am in favor of nuclear power and think that closing the plants was a huge mistake, but it's not somehow fully irrational to opose nuclear power. Not everyone has the hubris of thinking they can evaluate the risks when being shown some data. Nor can they distinguish the difference between "the experts then said it's safe" and "the experts now say it's safe".

Sure, but meanwhile they've been using your lungs as a particulate filter for coal byproducts for decades, and these things will fuck you up even in the best case scenario.

Coal plants also produce radioactive material btw: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

Top comment doesn't say it's better. Just says it's a "workhorse".

The article itself doesn't say "it's better", basically just says "in this one specific benchmark it beat Claude with Claude code". Mind you with multimodality it Opus still beat GLM 5.2 very handily in that same benchmark.

I can't find any contradiction and I don't see anyone lying directly. At most they lead you to imply false things, but they're not untrue at a literal reading.

If you did "web stuff" in the early 2000s (like 2005-2010). You'd probably know who he is. He did Ruby on Rails, a backend web framework.

But that was also very Start-up and America focussed. So if you did web dev in some other country and didn't have colleagues who were into that culture you still might've missed the name.

Ru y was something that one guy tinkered with briefly. It was less used than Perl. Java and php was what tools were built in at my company.

TBH the biggest difference is him being more vocal.

I'm pretty sure most of the people who did "web stuff" at the time and used twitter (key point maybe) know him simply because you'd often see his tweets. Regardless of coutry (I'm from Russia, for exampl)

There was a big RoR scene in Glasgow in the mid-2000s, but there were a few of us that were resolutely Django.

I stand by that decision, for various reasons.

Not least being that "Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby" gave me the ick.

Well maybe we shouldn't then? Before LLMs some not just clueless but also malicious rando could've send a PR too. And the maintainers might've gotten burned out any and just said f-it and merged stuff randomly. I don't see how AI changed the calculation here much.

No reasonable maintainer would recklessly merge something he/she hasn’t reviewed. Well, those who blindly accept whatever AI outputs… perhaps it’s time for them to find another job.

Just because one offers software for free doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be standards.

That's an interesting use of the word 'job'. How much is the rsync maintainer paid?

My bad, I meant profession.

Same issue there. A profession is an occupation that you get paid for doing.

AFAIK the rsync maintainer does it for free. And he mainly seems to be getting abuse in return for that service.

> Same issue there. A profession is an occupation that you get paid for doing.

Wrong, a profession is an occupation that requires specialized training or qualifications. This means one can have a profession and still not get paid.

> And he mainly seems to be getting abuse in return for that service.

What abuse you are referring to?

If you want to go down that semantic route, then being an open source maintainer clearly isn't a profession, as it requires neither specialized training nor qualifications!

In terms of abuse, I was thinking of this issue thread: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/929

> If you want to go down that semantic route, then being an open source maintainer clearly isn't a profession, as it requires neither specialized training nor qualifications!

Open source software maintenance without qualifications? I hope you understand how disastrous it would be for serious software like rsync.

I should think most open source software is maintained by people without any special training or qualifications. And would you expect to obtain the services of, say, a highly qualified plumber or electrician for free?

It might be more useful if qualifications were required before people were allowed to complain about open source software on internet message boards. That’ll be the day!

Before, there was a chance to spot it (and things like XZ Utils backdoor were rare), now it will be well hidden in the ocean of slop PRs.

Disabling ssh alternate channels will make it uncomfortable enough for most people to be a deterrant. But if you require multiple ssh channels for different reasons that won't be a solution for you.

Whoa there, am I missing something, why so aggressive and immediately with the ad homs?

I think by that logic dangerously-skip-permissions and openclaw should've never been a thing. I agree that people use them too liberally, but I think at some point you have to find a balance between systemic safety risks and individual freedom.

Are you being sincere? This is one layer of irony too much for my brain to comprehend.

The person you're replying to is making a joke about OpenAI shutting down Sora their video generation "social media" app recently.

You get it!

Well it seems like whatever's on that page is blocked by the corporate proxy malware scanner I'm currently behind.