The purpose of the piece is to smear the notion of individual control and development of AI tools. It's known as 'running propaganda'.

I'm happy with outgroup x being able to develop their own AIs, because that means I'm able to develop AIs too.

Staggeringly naive, tbh. Your profession will be made obsolete as a self-sustaining for-profit enterprise either way. The difference is that the tooling can either be owned exclusively by megacorp, or it can be owned by people.

It's better to be a bard relying on the charity and small custom of others than a literal sharecropper fueling Universal's proprietary model for next to nothing. At least in the former case you're free.

In Italy's case, it will be its long track record of poor governance combined with the close intertwining of media interests and political parties. Live sport is just about all these subscription broadcasters have left, so a vicious defense is to be expected.

When the remux is 30gb and the 1080 encode is 23gb ✈️🏢🏢

Then said tools were made a lot simpler with a lot less control over them

Which needs to be reversed if we're to remain free in Western democracies. Access to and control of computing - general purpose computing in particular - is practically a civil liberty now. I look at legislators in my own country, and I'd wager 50% of them don't understand this, 40% kind of grasp the problems but are apathetic, and 10% are on the enemies' payrolls.

I'm convinced Adobe's acquisition activity is driven primarily by elimination of alternatives to the SaaS subscription model, as opposed to revenue growth. Adobe is okay with viable competition, but they are not okay with viable competition that offers an alternate payment and delivery model that doesn't view the customer as an open wallet. That's when the polonium tea comes out, because letting that run spells industry exodus.

It makes me wonder what the US DOJ/FTC/relevant regulator thinks. Perhaps they don't care at all because (unlike Adobe's userbase) we realize this sector is as un-vital as it gets. The Stockholm syndrome on display is sad nevertheless.

It makes you wonder why Google pursues initiatives like Web Environment "Integrity", given that proprietary mobile apps for the most part have already completed the hatchet job on user agency and privacy.

An open app simply is another type of browser tab, in my books. From a 'screen cruft' perspective I consider them roughly equivalent. At any rate it's an interesting aspect of software design psychology...

This is how you effectively combat the interests trying to kill libraries, filesharing and the public commons in general. Continue normalizing the activity, as it makes law designed to attack it all the more odious and unworkable. The bad guys lose when cultural attitudes rally around free information exchange. The key to that is being public and vocal like the dev.

You need to enable JavaScript to use Direct File.

On the plus side, UBO only had to block one script (on the login page at least).

Alt. headline: Uncle Sam ropes in Australia and Google in latest China African containment initiative