Anything with a very low rate of true positives applied to a large population is going to have an insane false positive rate. EG a 1 in 7M issue applied to 70M students with a 1% false positive rate would produce 700k false positives. Worse people who are actually planning a school shooting may be more likely to avoid telegraphing their intentions. So you could damage 700k kids futures and traumatize them without even catching many or any of the killers.

They in the last year or so added built in vertical tabs , much better hardware support for decoding video on Linux, continue to support manifest v2 and high quality ad blocking. Have increased performance and memory usage.

In the last 7 years performance is night and day different as is multiple process performance and switched away from unmaintainable old broken addon system.

They also created one of the premiere programming languages which is making in roads in the Linux kernel.

Which literally means they have to announce fake plans to build which be continually delayed until at least 2028

It absolutely is private insofar as it is a channel between the software running on their end -> user who is operating the software. The lack of end to end encryption does not make it not private it makes it insecure which doesn’t speak whatsoever to the issue raised which is that creation of an image by a user isn’t likely to be considered publication until they share it.

It’s highly probable that keeping people from generating deep fake nudes requires additional law.

The article says Tesla deletes it and was forced to produce it. Seems pretty obvious that your theory is wrong

Is providing it over a private channel to a singular user publication?

I suspect that you will have to directly regulate image generation

Perhaps most importantly although we know it was not so lost because we read the article or at least the summary if it had been it would have been a deliberate design decision to have it be so.

Your explanation doesn’t wash in reality but it also doesn’t wash even in theory.

Because it may not be possible to transmit depending on location. Also non violtile storage is cheap and fast and ram is normally limited

This explanation is completely fabricated, based on nothing, and nonsense.

It is obviously critical data that nobody halfway competent would write to ram. Also video data is very large and makes no sense to store in ram.

Furthermore the article says it was deleted and they later recovered it which would not have been possible with RAM

Basically why are you pushing this drivel.

The overwhelming majority of Linux users are on 4 distros + derivatives. Debian Fedora Arch Suse not “thousands”

Where would what end? Most actually open source projects just publish releases to source and provide as much or as little support as they feel like. Slap a github issues page up and tell every user that you are only interested in dealing with bugs in the most recent version in whatever official channel you prefer eg provide appimage of releases and insist that users reproduce and document bug.

Time wasted mostly wont even bother to create a github account and if they do close issues if they can’t follow directions.

Just because it’s open source doesn’t mean it’s necessarily open for all uses. His license explicitly denied using his code in packages. People did it anyway.

There exists pkgbuilds for arch and previously packages of the older GPL builds.

A pkgbuild is just a recipe for each users computer do do the stuff needed to fetch and or build publicly available software. It is copyright the writer of the recipe not the owner of the software thus fetched. That is to say the owner of foobar can’t copyright the functional equivalent of a bash script which does git clone and make install foobar.

The older versions thereof are still available under the GPL and aren’t subject to being removed.

Neither of these are actually subject to the authors whims. He doesn’t own the pkgbuild and if he chooses to offer the file to users they can download it either by manually git cloning it or having a script do it.

So no they didn’t “do it anyway”

You can just not publish your actual contacts and choose what you will and wont offer support on your public facing persona.

Most people arguing from analogies are doing so because they can’t actually make a coherent argument against THING so they make a bad analogy and then expect you to unwind the 17 ways the analogy and the thing are different. This being a waste of time. I’ll just tell you that your analogy is trash and you should do better.

It is the simple truth

It would be saner to drop direct tech support than to drop support for an operating system

He chooses to do direct support over discord vs making people make github issues and wants to whine that this is taxing

The original code was GPL which he illegally re-licensed to creative commons.

I’m passing judgement. He’s a weirdo

I don’t think you have any projects anyone would use. If you did you could ust tell the imaginary entitled punk you don’t have time.

I haven’t read anything VILE here. It’s happening because he’s both controlling and implicitly bad at maintaining said control. Had he not insisted on trying to control packages he would have had a working package like every other software project in the ecosystem that is properly maintained for free by other people’s labor.