| Professional Nouns | he/him/his |
| Github | github.com/fieldswork |
| Discord | fieldswork |
| Signal | fields.11 |
| Bluesky | @fieldswork.neocities.org |
| Site (under construction!) | fieldswork.neocities.org |
| Professional Nouns | he/him/his |
| Github | github.com/fieldswork |
| Discord | fieldswork |
| Signal | fields.11 |
| Bluesky | @fieldswork.neocities.org |
| Site (under construction!) | fieldswork.neocities.org |
probably a bad take, but i don't think it's productive to harass distro/de devs and maintainers who are being forced to implement age-gating features necessary for their software to be legally compliant
don't get me wrong, the government mandating an invasive feature into existence against the will of the devs is already some special type of hell, but i don't get what the alternative is if they want their software to actually be usable
disclaimer, not a distro/de dev/maintainer, but i follow some and lord they seem stressed out already and i can't imagine the dogpiling is helping much

@zaire i really don't mean to be dense, but do you think it's realistic that the ai bubble will pop in such a way that it will completely prevent kernel/distro maintainers from using ai in their workflows?
at work and in my personal life i'm actively grappling with the whole "the ai cat is out of the bag and getting it back in the bag (esp. when these things can be run locally) is going to be really hard" argument is kinda wrecking me atm
for your actual question .. it feels like an argument of practicality vs risk? and i can't make that determination for you, but i'm also in the same boat for security paranoia and i know that THAT threat is real, idk this sucks
sorry for rambling