Pika

You have correctly identified the core issue with open source.

Personally speaking, as inefficient as it is, I think that donations is the best way to support a self hosted open source project.

Followed by paying for licensing to be able to get support for the product.

If your project is open source any other restriction out there, you can’t really do because they can just fork and patch the software to remove the restriction.

Due to that restriction(or lack of), I’ve always personally seen most open-source projects to be more of a hobbyist or personal project then a project that someone wants to do to make money.

This happens whenever you’re talking about any topic that the AI model provider has decided arbitrarily they don’t want to do.

I got temporarily banned off deep-seek the other day because I was curious about how well generation technology has gotten for self-hosting. So I asked it about setting up Comfy UI because I had never used it before. Woke up the next morning to a your account has been suspended because we have deemed you broke terms of service. In order to appeal you need a Chinese phone number, it made me chuckle.

Considering the only two questions I asked it was about comfy UI or how to make a recipe similar to the now discontinued flaming hot cheetos Mountain Dew(I missed the production window sadly!)

I’m leaning towards the comfy UI being the reason.

edit: wrong software name

zabbix with ntfy for short term alerts and a telegram bot for long-term alerts.

No its not us based, I’ve never had a self check here that has that issue. They lock down for if they think you are stealing (I’ve never had repeated scans trigger that its usually if you try to hide a barcode or something) or age restrict but other than that as long as it isn’t an operator issue its pretty streamlined.

man age checks on energy drinks must suck, we don’t habe that here or I likely would dislike doing self check a little as well.

I would still do it because its defo faster but it might cause me to at least potentially think about it

I never quite made it to the drones part, but I remember the machines that could harvest resources for you.

Oh man, I haven’t played the second one, but the first one I felt was pretty grindy. Are you saying that it’s even more grindier in the second one? That’s disappointing I ultimately stopped once I unlocked the research area in the first one because the game became too much of a grind.

edit: I typod. I’m comparing the first to the second, saying the first was pretty grindy.

Yeah, I do agree your jurisdiction may vary.

In the US at least, you can’t change a terms of purchase via a terms of service.

So if it was stated at point of purchase that your system will be getting 10 years of updates, and then they decided six years in, you know what? We’re actually only going to do six years of updates, and then posted a terms of service that changed how long they were able to update it. That wouldn’t be legally binding.

In this case, though it doesn’t sound like they’re changing existing buyer’s agreements, it sounds like they are changing the purchase agreement for new consumers who haven’t purchased the product. which is far more legally enforceable as no agreement has been done in that case.

Still a shitty thing for them to do though, considering that they had promised that Chromebooks would have 10 years of updates but I don’t think they’re in violation of anything since it sounds like it’s only going to new consumers.

you are correct, if they sold them with a paper saying there will be 10 years of updates they are required to provide 10 years of updates. If not then they could be taken to court for either fraud or false advertising. Which they would likely not show up to cause that’s usually their go to.

The only benefit I could think of isn’t going to be in the areas that they want to deploy this service.

Like, I could see this being advantageous in lower populated areas that don’t really have DoorDash drivers.

But yeah, if you’re in a populated area, I don’t really get why I would want this over. Just having a traditional driver that arrives.

I guess if the system told me that it was going to be delivered by drone, so therefore I knew not to tip ahead of time? idk

yea 11m changes is quite a bit at once but, I wouldn’t expect a constant change like that. After all, the monorepo itself is a little over 3m lines, 1.37m of it being lang/locale files for every language for its front end, 600k of it is comments, and 1.5m is the rest of it.

For perspective, the watch division makes between $35 to $40 billion annually.

This commit was the refactor commit from the private dev flow to the open source repo. The process basically added a lot of files and deleted a bunch as well. it was long overdue but I wouldn’t expect constant 11m line code changes

I’m glad you added from 2025 there because otherwise it would have been super deceptive.

I definitely thought it happened again, and I was gonna be like, well that was fast. Like we all know it’s going to happen again, but that would have been extremely fast.

I was originally going to add that usually different services can use the same name as long as there’s no overlap, but you can’t even use that on this one because they’re both blogging platforms.

Yeah, unless they have authorization from the original project this is likely going to require a name change.

Wasn’t Shopify one of the first companies to go all in on an AI infrastructure? I seemed to recall reading that about a year or two ago.

Said backdoor isn’t possible with the current day key exchange process. Without the servers in use private key, the most law agencies can do without acquiring the private key is force the CA to revoke a cert, which will disallow properly configured clients from accessing and transferring data with the server.

LE doesn’t have enough information to recreate the private key based off the public key, the only key distributed during the CSR process is the servers public key via a certificate signing request which is signed using your private key, which the CA then signs with it’s own intermediate key (which is signed by it’s root server certificate) and hands back to the private server.

The CA doesn’t have the ability to create that private key, and as such doesn’t have a way to decrypt traffic that is using that key. There is no concern for a backdoor in that process.

In order for the “backdoor” to exist, they would need to either copy the private key as part of the signing process (which it doesn’t), or somehow force the server admin to use a new private key (that the CA also holds) or somehow compromise the servers key generation process to allow for an escrow on the private key when it was generated which would allow the CA to be able to recreate the private key using the master & public key.

Now don’t take me wrong, you can still have a MiTM impersonation attack or a full impersonation bypass by the CA issuing a new certificate and having the DNS registrar have the web address go to a new server that is using the new key but, that’s not something the CA alone has the capability of doing, and any traffic that is issued to the original server still wouldn’t be compromised, its just clients visiting your site will end up at the other site and as such will end up using keys that the other side generated instead of your own keys and additionally said new keys would also be appearing in Certificate transparency logs, or modern day clients would refuse to use them.

I don’t think anyone’s going to solve the problem in general, to be honest.

Like, Let’s Encrypts goal is super novel, but also expensive as shit to actually run, and requires a lot of coordination because it needs to be a trust authority. If this ever happened, it would probably be at the backing of some government structure, because I don’t see many people wanting to jump at that as an expense.

Is this accurate? Like, I know what you’re meaning, but I’m pretty sure it’s not ICANN doing it, and more so your domain registrar handing it over to the US government.

I think the most control that ICANN has over it is they could theoretically, if they wanted to, delete an entire top level domain. Since they do control the DNS root, but that is the most that they control from what I understand.

I don’t know if they have the ability to delete or transfer control over an individual domain on legal request. I think that’s outside of what their actual system allows for.

the ironic part of this is in some cases it can. Pirate broadcasts and media boxes are becoming increasingly common to have subscription models for way cheaper than you would having the traditional streaming subs.

We are in a world where even piracy is starting to cost money in some cases fair cause convienence, but its still weird to think about. Everything always goes full circle.