> Government-mandated scanning requirements on people's printers for supposedly illegal guns would be similarly unconstitutional to government-mandated scanning requirements on people's phones for CSAM
Don’t we have something similar with how pretty much all copiers/printers wont print currency?
> Don’t we have something similar with how pretty much all copiers/printers wont print currency?
The short answer is yes, but I'm not sure how similar.
Copiers/printers that refuse to print money detect a pattern designed in the original physical currency note (as with the EURion constellation [1], with emphasis on the fact that currency is printed by the government) or a digital watermark placed in digital images of money (as with the Counterfeit Deterrence System voluntarily developed by banks [2]).
18 U.S. Code § 474A makes controlling or possessing "any essentially identical feature or device adapted to the making of" counterfeit money a felony [3]. What happens if I make a single "simple" printer for my own use that prints anything I tell it to because I "simply" didn't include any scanning or blocking functions in the printer design, and I never intend to print copy/counterfeit money? Is such a printer "adapted to the making of" counterfeit money? I don't know. If I instead make or transfer such a printer for any purpose other than my own personal use, the answer might move toward yes, but maybe it was already yes. Does the US require all copiers and printers to include at least one feature that prevents copying or counterfeiting of money? I don't know.
> So far, there is zero evidence in the last 30 years more strict gun laws have curbed crime. The states with the strictest laws conveniently have the highest proportion of gun crime. The same people writing these laws don't understand what "per capita " means. Nor are they willing to confront the reality of what the data shows.
I’ve seen this claim from a few people in this thread but everytime I look up gun deaths per capita Massachusetts and California are low on the list and both have strict gun laws compared to red states
Why would people/companies donate more money to open source in the future that they don’t already donate today?
It’s a tragedy of the commons problem. Most of the money available is not tied up to decision makers who are ideologically aligned with open source, so I don’t see why they’d donate any more in the future.
They usually do so because they are critically reliant on a library that’s going to die, think it’s good PR, makes engineers happy(don’t think they care about that anymore), or they think they can gain control of some aspect of industry(looking at you futurewei and the corporate workers of the Rust project)
Because donating to open source projects today has an extremely unclear payoff. For example, I donate to KDE, which is my favorite Linux desktop environment. However, this does not have a measurable impact on my day-to-day usage of KDE. It's very abstract in that I'm making a tiny, opaque contribution to its development, but I have no influence on what gets developed.
More concretely, there are many features that I'd love to see in KDE which don't currently exist. It would be amazing if I could just donate $10, $20, $50 and submit a ticket for a maintainer to consider implementing the feature. If they agree that it's a feature worth having, then my donation easily covers running AI for an hour to get it done. And then I'd be able to use that feature a few days later.
1. You can already do that it just costs more than $10.
2. Even assuming the AI can crap out the entire feature unassisted, in a large open source code base the maintainer is gonna to spend a sizeable fraction of the time reviewing and testing the feature as they would have coding it. You’re now back to 1.
Conceivably it might make it a little cheaper, but not anywhere close to the kind of money you’re talking about.
Now if agents do get so good that no human review is required, you wouldn’t bother with the library in the first place.
> Now if agents do get so good that no human review is required, you wouldn’t bother with the library in the first place.
The comment you responded to is (presumably) talking about the transition phase where LLMs can help implement but not fully deliver a feature and need human oversight.
If there are reasonably good devs in low CoL areas who can coax a new feature or bug fix for an open source project out of an LLM for $50, i think it’s worth trialling as a business model.
Did you skip the first part of my comment where I specifically addressed that.
Even if the human is only doing review and QA, there’s no low cost of living area where $50 get you enough time to do those things from someone with enough competence to do them. Much less $10.
Yea, that’s the ideologically not aligned part I referenced.
If AI can make features without humans why would I, as a profit maximizing organization, donate that resource instead of keeping it in house? If we’re not gonna have human eyes on it then we’re not getting more secure, I don’t really think positive PR would exist for that, and it would deny competitors resources you now have that they don’t.
I thought Slack started as a failed game and they only pivoted when their in game chat proved popular. They still have game assets around like their 404 page iirc.
Not quite, they built Slack as an internal communication tool while building the game Glitch (RIP) and after the game failed they decided to productize Slack.
Don’t be obtuse
reply