I made it! It wasn’t that hard, the API was quite straightforward.
I made it! It wasn’t that hard, the API was quite straightforward.
fixed, sorry
not a single word about crypto is present in the video
are you familiar with left-wing blockchain and that whole strand of research or you just talk because you have no clue about the fact that there’s always been plenty of anti-capitalist and post-capitalist in the blockchain scene?
Have you watched the video or just stopped at the title?
There’s a lot of lefitsts spaces in the blockchain. While they are minoritarian, they have a distinct political agenda and set of values, separate from most of the web3 world. They either envision the usage of blockchain for local economies (an evolution of circular economy and local currencies that were popular in the 90’s and 2000s), or more global scale realignment of incentives, either through socialist market economies or more planning-oriented solutions.
Months? You clearly haven’t tried Pyanodons.
Jokes aside, yeah, it would be a killer.
If you’re wondering, no Appflowy cannot be used to replace Notion. It’s in their claim but you would have a pretty bad time doing it. Anytype might one day get there, Appflowy is another thing.
Bonfire, with its direct support for OpenScience features, would be a better alternative
None. I’m used to Notion and unfortunately there’s no OSS even getting close to that. I would like to move away, but even if I considered to lose my current base or move everything manually, there’s nothing feature-rich enough to meet my use cases.
They just allocate according to different logic than the mainstream american FOSS ideology. For instance, hackerbros, and you seem to say the same, will tell you that resources should be centralized into the biggest project in its own category to add more and more features to it. Regardless of cooptation from the private sector, this is generally a bad idea. It leads to a monoculture and monoculture leads to critical bugs impacting enormous amount of users. Also it’s predicated on the idea that there should be only a single way to fullfill a specific use-case, and that it’s the same throughout the world, erasing cultural, economic, social, biological and political differences. Optimization requires standardization, standardization requires erasure and suppression of minoritarian voices and it’s therefore oppressive. Maximizing it is not a good idea, both for technical, political and ethical reasons.
Seeding new projects that better fit local contexts, or simply produce diverse alternatives raises diversity and in turns raises resilience of the software ecosystem as a whole.
There has been for years: NLNet. It just got suspended by right-wingers. A lot of European projects were relying on it.
deleted by creator
Right now the whole model of generative AI and in general LLM is built on the assumption that training a machine learning model is not a problem for licenses, copyright and whatever. Obviously this is bringing to huge legal battles and before their outcome is clear and a new legal pratice or specific regulations are established in EU and USA, there’s no point discussing licenses.
Also licenses don’t prevent anything, they are not magic. If small or big AI companies feel safe in violating these laws or just profit enough to pay fines, they will keep doing it. It’s the same with FOSS licenses: most small companies violate licenses and unless you have whistleblowers, you never find out. Even then, the legal path is very long. Only big corporate scared of humongous lawsuits really care about it, but small startups? Small consultancies? They don’t care. Licenses are just a sign that says “STOP! Or go on, I’m a license, not a cop”
Me, 404media or Zuckerberg?