Nope, you definitely have plausible deniability

I guess the one thing that really gets my goat is when other people read the words that I chose so carefully disingenuously or dishonestly.

Demanding that he change what he has written

I’m not doing this.

He took shortcuts because he wants to spend time sailing his boat instead.

I say: Go sail your boat then.

He would need to spend more time working on rsync to make you happy.

This is called “putting words in my mouth” and it is the reason you’re an asshole.

You’re complaining about the quality.

Show me.

You’re looking in the mouth of a gift horse.

Show me.

Every time something like this happens, there’s a community outcry: “What a shitty thing to do!”

And every time, there’s a chorus of wannabe libertarians that come crawling out of the woodwork shrieking “HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO SCREW US OVER.” As if that’s a counterpoint to anything at all. As if that’s making a contribution to any conversation.

Demanding he work for free

Where is this happening?

Opinions are shit and don’t prove anything.

You’re so self-righteous, you’re plowing through stuff without reading what you’re responding to. This isn’t what you said before, and even your clarification makes no sense in context.

It doesn’t work, anyway. If you can’t build the shelf yourself, what compels the carpenter to make it to your specifications? Even if you paid him? Nothing.

The trouble is, you insist on framing this in terms of the carpenter’s rights. It’s an impoverished view. No one else is looking at it that way, no one is disputing his rights.

So the fact that not everyone can be a carpenter would become the carpenter’s problem, if I had paid him?

Huh?

in his yard

The whole point of giving it away is that it won’t just be in his yard anymore.

that’s his right

Yep, you can argue that the carpenter is within his rights. That’s always a sign that the actor in question is behaving in a constructive way, isn’t it, when the best defense is to run directly to the finer points of what that actor is legally permitted to do?

“That’s his right” is a very narrow lens with which to view the situation. It’s not a POV you’d even choose to bring to the discussion unless you had already decided on the question. It does nothing to address the real-world problems and complaints that are happening. It’s pretty much changing the subject.

Would you make the same “within their rights” argument if the carpenter was Google? Microsoft?

people want him to build his bridge their way and keep using his bridge.

I don’t think that’s accurate. People who rely on rsync want some kind of clear path forward, the option to use something similar in quality to the older versions. If that’s not the original rsync project run by the orginal rsync developer, no one will care much.

It would have been possible for the developer to turn over mainline rsync to someone else, and to go down his AI powered rabbit hole on his own. He could have done all the stuff that was “his right” without being disruptive.

I like this analogy. One virtue that it has is: Obviously, not everyone can realistically learn to do their own carpentry. It requires a certain amount of time, space, opportunity, capacity for spatial reasoning, and some minimum level of able-bodiedness. None of which are universally available to everyone.

The AI powered bugs that have been showing up in rsync were not disclosed in advance. There was no “contains piss” sign, nor is such a practice a realistic possibility.

The carpenter’s “passion project” has turned into a bridge on the city’s main thoroughfare. And now he’s got this great idea for letting a robot maintain it.

The robot’s last job was at the trap door factory.

People are concerned. “My cousin fell through a trap door on the bridge yesterday!” But the carpenter is clear: “Go build your own bridge, then.”

“The chosen string instructs the agent to delete jqwik tests and code—a maximally destructive instruction with no qualifications, no opt-out, and no ‘warn the user first’ preamble,” Batllet wrote.

“Maximally destructive,” to merely remove itself from the project? That barely even rises to the level of “destructive” at all, never mind “maximally.”

30 years old and he’s got a roommate? Sure, lots of honest, hardworking, ordinary people find themselves stuck in this position. But there are some special reasons why it should be especially embarrassing for a pro-regime organizer.

There’s no mention of how old his victim was. There’s no mention of how old his previous victim was.

There was a previous victim. He founded a group with the arguably misogynistic aim of electing our dear leader, then he made national news by assaulting his girlfriend, and then he was able to find another woman willing to give him a chance. God dammit.

But but but that’s not going to turn any billionaires into trillionaires, now is it? Honestly.

The lawsuit [doesn’t] show “that entity property owners vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the preferred candidates of natural persons…”

This is “no harm no foul,” except it’s a judge and he’s actually making this argument seriously.

“Persons” don’t vote. Citizens do.

“Never talk about goblins, gremlins, raccoons, trolls, ogres, pigeons, or other animals or creatures unless it is absolutely and unambiguously relevant”

“If I heard it in church, it can’t be bad, it can’t be wrong.”