I will add as a narrowboater.

I found towpaths also have this issue with definition of surface.

I am legally blind. (Some vision but bad)

I have a few times tried to add more ditail to areas of towpath that will help the others like me know what to expect before mooring.

Seems anything that improves this will help in your issues as well.

Wow someone have enouth fuck about the fuck I gove. To write an app to monitor it.

Pity I dont give enouth fucks to install it.

Given all it wants to do is life up and down.

If we make tbe huge assumption it has any idea what is happening.

Your wife is likely its actual intent.

RAAAWR

More like “buck bawk” peck peck

Spiders setting up websites for extream identity theft?

Yeah that is often the issue.

It is rare a single company owns all the IP on code. So its common that companies are not releasing code because they cannot.

Yeah any reverse engineering of closed source code takes time. It’s a huge job on its own. Adding the need to avoid actions that may lead to legal issues.

Well yep, It’s very likely this may never round to a perfect replacement product.

But it still has value. For starters, it will encourage new open source projects to use it rather than the propria try version, long before it’s a direct replacement capable product.

So the effort is worth some excitement. At least a pack on the baxck and free beer for some of the guys trying.

Humans do something very Elephant.

Of course, it’s a bit of a petty detail. And is equally valid both ways.

But really goes to show how humanity has got so much wrong. We again and again discover animals doing things we have classed as uniquely human.

In every way, we decide humans are unique amongst animal spices. Seems to fail if we wait long enough.

And before any vegans use this to make some argument. Your choices are yours. But I am yet to see any other animal spices shame members for the diet they evolved eating. So maybe that will be the unique way to measure humanity that lasts. Because eating meat. Or even treating it with cruelty, ain’t one. if you doubt it, look at the insects that breed inside living animals. Many imprisoning the creature as their children grow, then eat it alive.

As much as I’d rather humanity be caring. This is not your argument against meat eaters.

Agreed. Most of us really do not think about this shit as often as we should. I know I am guilty of assuming he when typing. I know because I make an effort not to be. And notice how often I need to correct text. Being older than many developers. I just grew up with the assumptions. So like many my age needed my attention drawn to the societal indoctrination.

People politely pointing it out is important. As is people volunteering to help correct older documentation.

The direct numerics of moors law may not be definite.

But the principal it defines is. In the future computers will have much more power then they do now.

The reason modern GPUs use things like shaders etc is to allow them to archive massive manipulation of data in more efficient ways specific for the task desired.

Honestly this is why I mention time scale as the main thing that will make this possible. How modern gpus or other specialised processers do the task is less important then what the game code is asking the gpu to achieve.

The idea that at a unknown future date. The CPU GPUs or what ever future tech we have. will never be able to run fast enough to read current cpu or gpu instruction sets. And generate the effect defined using future techniques is not viable as an argument. The only questions are how long and is anyone going to have the motivation to reverse engineer the large but finite instruction sets used by secretive hardware corps today.

Not so sure about that. When you consider time spans.

Currently we can emulate the majority of early games consoles. So theoretically with time and Moors law any hardware will be emulate able in a few decades. With enough information.

The advantage of open source software. Is it can be used with the original binaries to reverse engineer the instruction set even if the original manufacturer wishes to hide it. So with will and effort even the most complex hardware will be able to be emulated on future much faster hardware.

True.

At least in poverty stricken nations. Oh and the US. But most of the rest of the world is a little different.

Sure in the early days of developments wealth helps in all nations. But it just tends to be a matter of time before new medical tech makes it to all the population in most 1st world nations.

The US is really pretty unique being one of the wealthiest nations but not having universal health care.

I sorta agree.

Unfortunately modern science is slow to change ideas it has accepted in the past.

Neil Degrass Tyson did an interesting talk on the % of religion in science. Based in the US. And it basically indicated that the higher you get. The lower the odds you belie in religiose ideals.

But the levels were pretty high until the top. And still not 0 then.

I personally think (opinion not fact) this has left us with a community. That hesitates to challenge science on religion alone. IE we don’t see ideas thrown out when it is clear religion was involved in forming them. But instead only when clear evidence refutes them.

In my less the humble opinion. This leaves science with a few old wives nuns tails. That are still followed 400years after the 1689 acceptance of the scientific method.

Honestly Humanity has been pretty arrogant. Took 100s of years before we recognised birds use tools. Mainly because everytime it was seen. Some other excuse was seen for why the bird was sticking a stick into a tree. Science was so sure mankind was unique it was unwilling to see reality.

But honestly if you think that is bad. Do some research into why European explorers thought Europe represented the most advanced civilisation. African cities raised to the ground rather then face the idea they may have been their before us.

It could be inherited from a common ancestor.

Or it could just have likely evolved multiple times in different primate branches.

As we have absolutely no way to document how early it first happened in our own branch. To assume it is linked is just more attempts to try and indicate the human branch is special. Use of tools has been seen in many many branches. We don’t assume that came from a joint ancestor that crawled out of the water. Or before.

You can copy binary code. Just as easy as source code.

It is only when running on a different architecture it gets a bit more complex.

And give the binary is directly translatable by software. Not hugely more complex for any company of the size you are unwilling to fight in court over open source code.

Sorry but no you are wrong. Hading the source in no way makes code harder to copy. Its how most of us hacked into games in the 1990s.

After all binary code is just simpler instruction set that takes very very minimal effort to convert into assembly language. And can be read by many even without that effort.

Its hardly a secret encrypted format. (Unless you are also designing your own hardware and not letting anyone see that. )

Is it anymore the case with other licences though.

Obscurity is no security at all. If you have no ability to fight to keep tour copy right or patient. People will copy it open or closed.

Even direct machine code can be copied a reverse engineered fairly simply.

So non of this is purely a open source permissive licence issue. Its a big corperations acting like fudal lords issue.

Sorta why the FSF was formed.

Because thses lucences working effects folks other then yourself.

So best for all OS developers and users to work together.

Depends what nation you are in and how you obtained it.

Anyone can release software under any licence. As long as they are not breaking the licence they release under. Or the licence they use any 3rd party code is under

I do not think GPL has any rules about claims. Just actual actions. But if they released in under another licence. Then it is possible. (But unlikely). The licence has such rules.

So in most cases. Actual actions or lack of rather then claims. Based on the licence is your only option. And that would mean contact he authors of any included code. Or FSF etc.

Some nations have advertising rules. Depending on how and where it was obtained you may be able to contact their advertising standards association equiv.

But providng for free can often weaken this. Although it is likely far from an absolute excuse to false advertising.

I huess you need to add the amount of false science to things as an excuse.

Exxon for example spent millions on climate research. And were the first to discover global warming evidence.

But after a change of leadership spent billions on false or questionable science to argue against man made and every other excuse about the evidence.

Plastics is another that did a huge amount of damage to the laymans intrepretation of science.

Plus many many more over the last 4 or 5 decades.

Hard to blame lay men for thinking science is often about the highest bidder rather then formal methods.