At this stage I don't think either is better over the other. Deno has inexplicable high memory usage issues in Linux containers. Bun more or less suffers from the same with an added dose of segfaults.
Node.js is a no-brainer for anyone shipping a TS/JS backend. I'd rather deal with poor DX and slightly worse performance than risk fighting runtime related issues on deployment.
Linux needs to be a first class citizen for any runtime/langauge toolchain.
F-Droid are in the FA stage of FAFO. If they don't reverse this, they will find themselves in the FO stage. Anyone can hold the opinion that "religion or its texts are ruinous" but you can never apply it in practice in a liberal democracy (even in secular states) simply because religious and expression rights are legally protected.
Don't moral police people especially on something that is as controversial as this.
Or this could be the FO itself. Both the threshold for NSFW as well as anti-puritanism sentiment has crept up so high that it has reached "religion is a cancer" stage.
> religious and expression rights are legally protected.
What "liberal democracy" has laws that tell F-Droid that it has to carry any particular apps, or how it has to mark them, again? There are some places that like to call themselves "liberal democracies" and have "must not carry" laws, but that's as far as it goes (and, on edit, those don't generally aim at religious content).
In fact I think you will probably find that there are no must-carry-religious-content laws anywhere, liberal or not. Even in utterly totalitarian states, the closest anything comes is rules that government spyware, or maybe propaganda, must be installed.
The only "FO" that will or should happen to F-Droid is that it may lose more users and/or contributors one way than the other.
There is a defacto shunning of it. But people are using it, MAI-DS-R1 https://huggingface.co/microsoft/MAI-DS-R1 among others are alternatives of the same thing with all the blocked topics removed.
The news about BuilderAI using 700 devs instead of AI is false. Here's why.
I've seen a lot of posts coming out of India claiming "we were the AI". So I looked into it to see if Builder AI was lying, or if this was just a case of unpaid developers from India spreading rumours after the company went bust.
Here's what some of the devs are saying:
> "We were the AI. They hired 700 of us to build the apps"
Sounds shocking, but it doesn't hold up.
The problem is, BuilderAI never said development was done using AI. Quite the opposite. Their own website explains that a virtual assistant called "Natasha" assigns a human developer to your project. That developer then customises the code. They even use facial recognition to verify it's the same person doing the work.
> "Natasha recommends the best suited developer for your app project, who then customises your code on our virtual desktop. We also use facial recognition to check that the developer working on your code is the same one Natasha picked."
I also checked the Wayback Machine. No changes were made to that site after the scandal. Which means: yes, those 700 developers were probably building apps, but no, they weren't "the AI". Because the company never claimed the apps were built by AI to begin with.
Well, it's an India-based company. If you check LinkedIn, most of the employees are based in India.
The issue here is that many people think AI only means LLMs, Transformers, or GenAI. But AI has been around for decades and includes machine learning, deep learning, and neural networks.
So anyone using ML is free to register a .ai domain. There’s nothing wrong with that.
The problem would be if you told customers that your virtual assistant, in this case "Natasha", was creating the code instead of humans.
But that's not what happened here. The company went broke because it was reporting false sales figures.
The argument in the post that copyleft licenses are freer seems handwavy at best. In a literal sense, obligations are restrictions on freedom, so yes, copyleft licenses are less free than permissive ones. Whether or not the overall benefits of said obligations outweigh their restrictions on freedom is a question worth discussing, but it's irrelevant to the question of which style of license is freer.
I'm not sold on Forgejo as a better alternative to Gitea. The Forgejo fork was completely unnecessary. The trigger behind the fork was the Forgejo authors tried to add their own copyright header into a patch contributed back to Gitea. They (Forgejo/Codeberg) followed it up with a lot of misinformation on FOSS e.t.c. some of which is still on their Gitea comparison page that ended up fracturing the community.
Some Codeberg admins had at some point threatened to blanket ban certain types of projects, notably anything slightly related to blockchain tech and that has always made me cautious of their site.
UnknownCheats. I'm active there and it has one of the best resources on this kind of stuff. I'm more interested in how Linux userspace Anti-cheats works notably VAC.
1. https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state... 2. https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3...
Node.js is a no-brainer for anyone shipping a TS/JS backend. I'd rather deal with poor DX and slightly worse performance than risk fighting runtime related issues on deployment.
Linux needs to be a first class citizen for any runtime/langauge toolchain.
reply