Agreed that it’s an entirely acceptable position to try and avoid being stuck in the crossfire of cyber warfare. Let’s be clear though, cyber warfare is already going on and Russia+China are pulling no punches routinely wiping American and European servers in various ways. Anyone on the front line of cybersecurity sees them knocking ceaselessly.

Whether it is being offered to the end users as free (as in freedom) software or as paid closed source has the usual implications. Ease of use, accessibility measures and support impacts inclusivity. Supported languages (natural and programming) will influence further who uses them or not. What constitutes the user base will determine what’s it’s used for and in turn will apply pressure to the editor to take a certain direction.

Political impact is not always obvious and not every single grain of software will be infused with a powerful one. The point is that our choice is either to ignore it or to acknowledge it. We can’t opt out of the world; blind neutrality is as political as any other position.

I would like to offer as a counterpoint that everything is political. Tech is no exception. Tech is a tool, a tool comes with a specific affordance and an affordance suggests to the wielder a certain worldview. To wilfully ignore the social and political impact of one’s work does not protect it from the world’s turmoil.

• C++ is fine
• Python is fine
• C# is fine
• PHP is fine
• JavaScript is fine
• C is fine
• Java is fine

I could go on

Also chaotic neutral: prioritizes issues by curiosity.

Only part I miss from going at the office. It’s not the same when you have to bake your own bribes.

If it listens and nods to the unedited, director’s cut version of my woes and frustrations, I’ll give it a cookie.

Or a crab.

Thank you! Wow, they were truly ahead of their time. 🙃

What is this cursed place? The clickbait has eaten everything. uBlock should make this into a blank page.

It’s fascinating how s-expressions are both data type and language syntax. Such power. Only other time I saw something remotely like this was XSLT & XML, which I admittedly do not miss one bit.

Are passionate about the development lifecycle of other engineers and their pain points.

If you’ve been coding for 55+ years, you’ve almost gone through a whole engineer life cycle and you most probably know a lot about pain points.

How do you produce the coffee to power the rust users?

Holy crap that’s a lot of devs 😳

Team of three. We do the feature branches, pull requests and code reviews. With the right culture, it keeps devs informed about the various projects and gives a nice space to discuss about the practice.

EDIT: we do automated linting and formatting checks too. Keeps things coherent.

Reducing emotion to voice intonation and facial expression is trivializing what it means to feel. This kind of approach dates from the 70s (promoted namely by Paul Elkman) and has been widely criticized from the get-go. It’s telling of the serious lack of emotional intelligence of the makers of such models. This field keeps redefining words pointing to deep concepts with their superficial facsimiles. If “emotion” is reduced to a smirk and “learning” to a calibrated variable, then of course OpenAI will be able to claim grand things based on that amputated view of the human experience.

Wrong article?

The actual research page is so awkward. The TLDR at the top goes:

single portrait photo + speech audio = hyper-realistic talking face video

Then a little lower comes the big red warning:

We are exploring visual affective skill generation for virtual, interactive characters, NOT impersonating any person in the real world.

No siree! Big “not what it looks like” vibes.

A lot of sectors need custom software and some of them have a mission more noble than profits. Government, education, science, culture… IT jobs in non-tech places can be rewarding too and you’ll get to have plenty of colleagues that aren’t your classmates. Being knowledgeable about various open source software can be valuable as well career wise.

From the org’s definition of bots, I’d say it’s implicit that bot activity excludes expected communication in an infrastructure, client-server or otherwise. A bot is historically understood as an unexpected, nosy guest poking around a system. A good one might be indexing a website for a search engine. A bad one might be scraping email addresses for spammers.

In any case, none of the examples you give can be reasonably categorized as bots and the full report gives no indication of doing so.