I’ve followed James Hoffman’s recipe.

15g coffee. 250ml water, soak for 2:00, drain.

Seems to work well. Simple too.

That’s what juries do.

People who don’t run nixos.

I’ve driven across France - it’s not uncommon. I’ve also taken the train, it’s much more expensive. In the US people fly because it’s too big. Coast to coast is 4-5 hours by air.

It’s not about travel efficiency, it’s about distance in general. People are more knowledgeable about areas near them. People on the West Coast usa don’t know about the East Coast as much.

Your argument depends on people being fundamentally different across the world, and they’re not. It’s racist.

Texas is bigger than France. Europeans. Specifically have little concept of that fact. “We know so many countries” is because of how small they are.

Most people know the area around them. Europeans included, it’s just that the area around them is often other countries.

Europeans frequently underestimate how much larger the US really is.

You know what’s funny? Codeberg has said nothing about being concerned about liability.

Their terms service change simply mentions that they require certain licenses and that they have concern over the licensing of LLM meeting that standard.

Event their follow up communication says absolutely nothing of liability.

“It’s not…”

“There are probably law firms…”

This is wild unfounded speculation.

P2P torrent users are nothing like a code hosting platform. 🤣

As has been said - their liability for llm code is no different from hosting any other code. They already have the same risk. And that is typically that they must respond to take-down notices which they are already doing.

They are already dealing with all of the problems they would be dealing with with llm code.

It’s just code puritanism wrapped in pseudo legal justification. Own it.

This hasn’t happened. It’s a fantasy.

Maybe you don’t understand copyright?

Yeah - it’s well known that scripts to automate doing bad things did not exist before llms.

People have tried using forges to host explicitly illegal material all the time. Not just “this may be a copyright issue perhaps maybe”.

The copyright complaint is a fig leaf to hide their shame.

They also outright banned cryptocurrency code with no “copyright fig leaf” apologia.

It’s code puritanism plain and simple. “We don’t like these things so we’re banning them.”

People can upload code that violates copyright too. No llm required.

So if that is the concern have a rule about not violating copyright (which they may already have). And there is likely already a process for handling that.

This is the problem I have with the situation: the solution chosen (banning llm code) doesn’t really address the concerns they’ve raised directly. It’s just apologetics to make it sound like it’s reason-based rather than “we don’t like it”.

It’s their platform, they can do what they want, but let’s not pretend it’s not code-puritanism.

Wow, lotta hate there. You doing okay?

At the very least it’s a mistake to say the law is “settled” at all. It’s barely been tested.

Huh. I mostly read people moralizing the use of AI and wanting to slap a scarlet AI on anyone who uses it while derisively using the terms “slop” and “vibe” to poison the well.

And if you put shit in the middle of the road and cause accidents then you have fucked up!

Are y’all dense or just being purposefully obtuse? If you went out on your bike and there was a weird new obstacle on a road you’ve ridden on before that caused you to hit it you’d be apoplectic. And rightly so. People get used to things being in a certain way.

When you’ve driven for 20+ years you start to expect lines, curbs, etc. And so introducing something brand new like this can take some adjusting. Making it short, with no reflectors, and without a bright color, was simply a stupid idea with predictable results.

People expect sidewalks and the center line.

They’ve added something new and unexpected to the roads and it’s causing accidents. That’s clearly a fail.

Because the concrete barriers sit extremely low to the ground, neighbors argue that aggressively driving or distracted motorists simply cannot see them until it is too late. But is that even a bad thing?

What a stupid question. Yes. You want them to be visible. “Doing what they are supposed to do” shouldn’t involve “causing accidents”.

Sounds like they didn’t even have reflectors on them at first? That borders on the malicious.