Okay, so yeah if you’re not a software developer, then forking it and developing the software is not an option for you. Your only option is to simply continue waiting for all of the software you use to be created by other people and handed to you, like you do already.

software gets forked and continued all the time

If you understand that this is true, then I don’t really understand your argument. If this happens all the time for other software, then why won’t it for Lutris? You’re just saying that people who are not software developers cannot develop software? Okay… yeah.

Those people are already completely dependent on software developers and their choices for all of the software they use, whether closed or open source, anyway.

It’s not like just anyone can fork any project and continue developing it.

Why not? Happens all the time.

I hear this argument a lot about many things

Perhaps there’s a reason you hear it so often about so many things?

This same principle also applies to the fediverse. An instance makes policy decisions that you don’t agree with? That’s okay, you can always host your own instance and make your own policies.

While I may not agree that letting AI write the code is a good idea, the complaints are dumber. It’s open source. Just fork it if you have a problem with it.

Trying to hide it is shitty and immature, though. Even more reason to just fork it. They are proving they don’t have the maturity or transparency needed to run a project like that.

Forgejo is the way

There’s nothing illegal about using Tor, which was developed and published by the US Navy and supported by the US State Department. Like other users have said, this is not an exit node which is the only type of node that I would be concerned about running.

Definitely look into I2P which, in a nutshell, is a peer-to-peer version of Tor. Hosting an I2P router comes with no legal risk, too. Hosting an I2P outproxy would be similar to hosting a Tor exit node, so be aware of that.

Software would ask the OS for the age range of the user (under 13, 13-15, 16-17, 18+). The software would implement content filters based on these age ranges.

The OS is only responsible for requiring the user to set an age and providing the age range to software.

Yes you have.

So this is basically just misinformation. There is no age or identity verification as part of this bill, the age is self-reported by the user and you could select any age you want. The bill requires the operating system to have users select an age when creating an account. The intention is that parents will select their child’s age when setting up their child’s accounts on phones and computers, to age-gate them from accessing certain software or websites.

Regardless, I don’t support this feature being mandatory, because it limits parents’ choices. Parents should be able to choose to disable this feature entirely or allow their children to use an OS that does not include this feature, if that is what they feel is appropriate for their child.

I think the gun analogy does not really work here: you cannot be held accountable for creating any part of a gun, in case of a murder.

You’re not making the gun, the programmers that wrote the DDoS program did. You’re firing it.

It’s more like, you and a bunch of your friends murder by getting together and flinging the victim with rubber bands until the victim actually dies. Just because all you did was fling a small percentage of the rubber bands and that wouldn’t have killed the victim on your own doesn’t change the fact that you participated in and committed a murder. Legal systems do not have loopholes that allow you to commit crimes like this. They only have loopholes for the ultra wealthy.

I am aware of how this works

No, you are absolutely not aware of how this works. This is a blatant felony. Its like thinking you can’t be convicted for murder because there’s nothing “fundamentally” illegal about shooting a gun.

No, this is not a civil matter or TOS violation. It is a federal crime and felony in the USA under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

So is conspiracy or threat to commit a crime in the CFAA. If you’re in the USA, you should delete this post because it is a federal crime, itself.

There is nothing illegal about creating massive amounts of traffic to an IP/website.

?? No this is extremely illegal.

Yeah, great, except the bot can literally just write whatever it wants to the config file ~/.openclaw/exec-approvals.json and give itself approval to execute bash commands.

There’s probably a hundred trivial ways to get around these permissions and approval requirements. I’ve played around with this bot and also opencode, and have witnessed opencode bypass permissions in real time by just coming up with a different way to do the thing it is wanting to do.

It’s not arbitrary code in this case, it’s well defined functions

No, you’re 100% wrong as the bot can just directly run arbitrary bash commands as well as write arbitrary code to a file and run the file. There’s probably a dozen different ways it can run arbitrary code and many more ways it can be exposed to malicious instructions from the internet.

“JuSt GeT tO tHe ShOoTiNg” just play a different game

Huge agreement on the operator count.

Also I could not tolerate making quick match quicker with pre-reinforced walls and pre-made rotation holes. It felt like a lot of the fun to the game came from the setup, and it was so impactful and rewarding throughout the round. They just took that away. Plus, as attacker, the setup time became so short that you sometimes barely had time to even enter the building with the drone, let alone gather any useful information or position the drone as a good camera. Just stupid. Who asked for that??

I exclusively played the “quick match” mode because competitive felt way too long and serious, and there was a strong expectation of using microphone and voice, which I am not willing to subject myself to.

There was a time when the online team vs team elimination/objective gamemode was really good. Easily one of the best shooters of the format, in my opinion. That time has long passed, however.

I think the feeling is the same, but the cause is a bit different. It is more similar to the dot-com bubble, where investors (for some reason?) are hyped to throw their money into AI. So if you can market yourself as AI, you can get big investments. Now that you have all that investor cash, you need to justify it somehow by using AI somewhere, anywhere.