As a developer who ditched Github and decided to self-host, there is only one reason. It's not technical difficulties, politics, nor AI. It's Microsoft. Like Apple, Facebook etc, I have a deep loathing for Microsoft and I want to remove as much of it from my life as I am able.
I now run Git on a pi using Gitea and Forgejo. I can now upload files of a size unheard of in GitHub, Claude can make a PR by itself that I can diff, edit, then merge, and even with the mighty power of a single pi 3b+, it feels more responsive.
This sort of thing, being owned by Microslop, and some other minor things are the reasons why I left GitHub and now have a local Git running on a pi on my network. Code is tiny and Git uses hardly any processing to run, so a pi is fine.
It's almost indistinguishable for me as a single user working on a codebase and I get no AI, no multinational corporation looking at my repo, I have complete control and will never be locked out of 'my' account because some company decided to do it to me.
What I am doing is correcting you on your asserting that my statement was "completely wrong from a concrete standpoint"
You just said :
"> When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy
Agreed
> at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy and my home is not private
Agreed."
So, to paraphrase, "A space can be considered private by the occupant, but the addition of an IP camera makes it not private.", right?
You seem to be unaware of one of the British idioms used in language, it's called "A joke".
Calling her 'the wicked with of the terfs' was one of those. I found it quite funny personally. I can find the joke funny despite my opinion of Rowling as a person or her statements on particular topics. Sometimes, here in the UK, we make jokes featuring people because the joke is funny, not just to virtue signal.
Here in the UK, there is a significant section of the population whose base state is mildly dissatisfied and the external manifestation of that is low level grumbling about minor things. It's not a virtue signal, it's not a statement, it is just how they are. You may do better understanding if you take off your glasses of American Exceptionalism and view things more objectively.
Ironically, your post could very easily be read that you were upset by the article, wanted to express that to strangers, and signalled your social ingroup by referencing other things you were upset about, like the joke.
This post contains more than one joke also. Some people will get them, some will not. And that's OK.
Many people are using the words 'buy' and 'bought' here. That in itself shows people regard the interaction they had with the company as a purchase, not just temporary access that can be removed unilaterally on a whim.
IMO If you bought something and someone takes that away, THAT is the actual theft, and you have limited options to alleviate your loss.
I just used the modern method for articles like that.
I read the headlines, skimmed the prose that has no purpose other than 'it was what the AI put out', then read the conclusion.
Similarly, I skip video content where the title is something like "How to get better fuel economy for your car" and the video starts "Let's investigate the entire history of wheels", and the whole video could just be a guy sat in a chair saying "keep your tyres at the correct pressure"
OK, I won't bother trying to talk further with someone who thinks in false dichotomies and cannot understand that two things can be true at the same time.
When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy, and at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy, and my home is not private, and those two truths are not dependent on whether the camera being there, or people watching the feed, is right or wrong.
I see it more like that there are things you can do to make sure nobody else gets into your home, like locking the door.
If your door is unlocked, either through ignorance or negligence, it's still not right for someone else to just walk into your home and look through stuff you thought was private.
Sure, they can do it, but just being able to easily do something doesn't make it right.
One of my projects was using a RRD database to store 10-second samples from 20 data streams with a RRD time of 1 year, which works out to around 82 million entries. I display this interactively on a raspberry pi and I used to use RRDTool in python, but switching to my own code leveraging mySQL (and using some judicious rollup tables) means that instead of a larger time span taking ~5 seconds to update, it is now fast enough to give me 20fps no matter the viewed range.
Not sure DuckDB will provide any benefit to my specific case, but I'll check it out.
I really did not want to change from 7 to 10. I did it begrudgingly partly because "It is the last version of windows".
Well, they were right in one sense. It is the last version of windows I will have. I now have an old box set up with Linux Mint, so I can get familiar with it before switching over all my main PCs
The way humans beat AI, at least until AGI, is to innovate conceptually. If what you do is simply rearrange existing concepts then your work will likely get replaced by AI. Coding is a good example of this, you put documented commands, with known behaviours, in sequences that produce defined outcomes. That is the perfect job for AI, if we can solve their irrational desire to please and hallucinate along the way.
I have Instagram installed, and it has a self-regulating feature for me. I sometimes load it up and see if any posts from the dozens of accounts I follow show up in the first 10.
When they do not, and I just get 10 random tiktok style slop videos from accounts I do not follow, I close the app and try again in a few months.
I am so glad they put in this feature that stops me scrolling further.
I note for premise 2 that the people who doubt the premise are the very stupid, but more importantly the very smart.
The former is no challenge to the premise, but the latter? That is a different story.
EDIT : For S&G I asked Claude about it. It replied :
The talk groups Penrose with the religious doubter, as if the two objections were the same species and could be dispatched by the same gesture: most of us find this easy to accept. But that's a headcount, not an argument. The religious objection can be set aside because it rests on a premise (the soul) the materialist simply doesn't share. Penrose's can't, because it's pitched entirely inside the materialist frame — Gödelian limits on algorithmic understanding, non-computable physics in the substrate. You don't get to wave that away; you have to show it's wrong. The talk does the former and pretends it's done the latter.
The entire superintelligence thesis is a wager on the authority of intelligence — that smarter minds see further, judge better, and that this is precisely why we should fear or defer to them. If you take that seriously, then dissent from the very smartest humans on the exact question of whether minds are substrate-independent is the most expensive dissent available. You can't venerate intelligence as the thing that settles everything and then file your most intelligent objector under "outliers, moving on." The move is self-undermining on the argument's own terms.
I now run Git on a pi using Gitea and Forgejo. I can now upload files of a size unheard of in GitHub, Claude can make a PR by itself that I can diff, edit, then merge, and even with the mighty power of a single pi 3b+, it feels more responsive.