Their “About” site is (just slightly) more insightful:
> Using AI-powered web search, we continuously monitor your questions and send you an email notification when the status flips to what you're waiting for.
I saw your comment and just finished listening to it, to those that can't be bothered to, he boils it down to: they don't want you to lose all of your social network if you lose your device. Imagine having to re-discover every user you've communicated with because you no longer have their identifiers, which I think is a fair argument to make.
Also, now that we know the timestamp, we know this user spread two pieces of misinformation in 28 words: Iran was never mentioned and it was not the first question in the QA. I think some snark is well justified here.
> they don't want you to lose all of your social network if you lose your device. Imagine having to re-discover every user you've communicated with because you no longer have their identifiers, which I think is a fair argument to make.
Other networks solved this by not blocking backup.
Take it up with him then. I live in one of those countries where I can purchase a SIM card for like €2 without needing an ID, so I can't say I'm personally invested in this phone number discussion one way or the other.
> First question after Moxie Marlinspike talk at the CCC conference was: "When will Signal not base itself on a mobile phone number, I am an activist from Iran"
Not meant to be pedantic, but the question about phone numbers appears to be the last question after the talk, asked at 38:05 in the video. (The first question, at 30:50, is about post quantum security.) I also don’t think the asker mentions being from Iran.
E.g., the MIT license wasn’t motivated by collaborative considerations, but it was mostly about the effectiveness and practicality of software distribution.
The Linux kernel definitely has the interest to force people to upstream modifications. GCC rejected the idea of converting itself as a library to force vendors to upstream their changes.
If something is "forced", it is inherently not an "invitation".
Additionally, GPL and derivatives focus on sharing code with users, which isn't necessarily the same thing as collaborating with the project's creators upstream. It depends entirely on how and where the software is used.
I don’t know much about the MinIO project specifically, but to me it seems to be a common misconception that just because a maintainer provides their software project under a permissive license (such as AGPL, MIT, etc.) would necessarily imply that they do this for particular ethical reasons, like caring about “the community” (whoever that is) or contributing something for the greater good.
In the end, it’s just software made available under specific terms. While I understand the inconvenience for users if things change, it feels like part of the disappointment might stem from one-sided expectations.
Neither does mine unless you leave out a key phrase and replace it with [...]. The point is that having dementia does not necessarily "sour everyone's view of you" as the parent said.
Disagreeing with the “sour everyone's view of you” aspect is one thing, but you called out parent comment for a potential conclusion that they neither made nor intimated.
(“Generate”, while correct, sounds too technical, and “confabulate” reads a bit obscure.)
reply