Is the idea that "when it benefits them" was... 23 years ago, and then they just sat on the land waiting for big tech to come along and want to buy it?
As mundane as it may sound, it seems most likely this was a clerical error made a long time ago. Maybe it can get unwound, but maybe not. If the people of this town are being screwed, it's by incompetence on someone's part 23 years ago, not by big tech.
I don't know how to pull the actual court documents without paying for them, but the article indicates the case was dismissed for lack of standing.
The plaintiffs tried to argue that as neighbours, they had an interest in the land usage being enforced. The court disagreed.
I presume the original family could bring a case? It doesn't seem like the 404 article or the Taylor Press article talked to them to see how _they_ feel about how their gift is being used.
Fair enough - my initial comment talked about quality, but I realized that was my own take on the situation.
I had revised the comment because I think I now understand Drew's chief complaint to be about the moral side of LLM usage, not the practical quality side of LLM usage.
He does use the word "slop" which implicates quality, but that's a single word in his essay, versus whole paragraphs about the moral questions of LLM usage and his stated reason that the fork was "to keep my conscience clear".
The tl;dr: Drew thinks Vim development has been tainted by LLM contributions, and is thus morally unsuitable to be used, and he will therefore be forking it.
Ha, what a coincidence. Just today I was reading a three year old Stackoverflow discussion about this [1].
It prompted Laurenz to submit the documentation patch that is cited in the article. In the discussion of the patch itself, people seem to conclude that it's a good improvement to the docs, but that the behaviour itself is a bit of a footgun. [2]
They act as a go-between in that they ultimately host on AWS/GCP. They host their own infrastructure in that they appear to run Kubernetes and have built out their own deployment and service fabric, so they're just using the underlying machines as dumb compute, they're not, eg, building on RDS.
In March 2021, someone asked a question about carbon emissions of their data centres. They said they hosted on both GCP and AWS, but mentioned they were interested in moving to their own bare metal [1].
In April 2021, I asked a question about egress fees to Google, and they walked back a bit the comment about moving to bare metal [2].
As of March 2022, they're still in AWS/GCP [3].
As of September 2022, workloads for new users deploy into AWS, even in regions that were previously served by GCP [4].
Is the idea that "when it benefits them" was... 23 years ago, and then they just sat on the land waiting for big tech to come along and want to buy it?
As mundane as it may sound, it seems most likely this was a clerical error made a long time ago. Maybe it can get unwound, but maybe not. If the people of this town are being screwed, it's by incompetence on someone's part 23 years ago, not by big tech.