Terrible argument. You can’t ignore scale. Algorithmic timelines increase efficacy and precision of ads tremendously. These platforms know exactly who to target with what ad, at what time, with what frequency to get the desired result. It’s like comparing a horse and buggy to a sports car.

Generative ads will be even worse because they can be made specifically to each individual.

Right now I don’t think any really could. Graphite is aiming to do all things 2D which is very ambitious and if it plays out definitely can. Krita is interesting as a drawing platform but it contains a lot of things photographers need like intuitive adjust layers, it always feels like it could be a few updates away from being completely viable for photography.

Yeah it’s definitely not just a money thing. Some projects and communities like Gimp have been historically dismissive of design as a concept. Where as Blender has not despite starting in a bad place design wise. It’s come so far.

Gimp needs a philosophy change more than anything but it will never happen with half the community screaming “it’s just different” anytime someone has valid criticisms. Design literacy is as real as code literacy. Thankfully there seems to be lots of other graphic projects these days that might fill the void.

Arch. Purely because of the Arch Wiki. I honestly think it’s the easiest OS to troubleshoot as long as you are willing and able to read every now and again.

If the units are set to inches for length. You can just type G (grab), X (or Y or Z), and 1 to move an inch in any direction. I think it used to be worse.

But without the plants and blue water.

That is NOT at all what people are saying. They’re saying that glueing together 15 different UX paradigms into a program is not as intuitive as something designed before it was coded by people with expertise in exactly that. Design is real no matter how much you don’t want it to be. This attitude is directly hurting open source software.

Not only a lack of designers, but the very concept of them is held in contempt among way too many in the open-source world (like this thread even).

This is a great point. Manufactured consent and all.

Social media has been around a long time. It is not reasonable to expect people to think of technology they can’t imagine even existing ten years in the future when “consenting” to use a platform. Legally you are correct. Morally this is obviously terrible. Everything about how terms and conditions are communicated is designed to take advantage of people who won’t or are unable to parse its meaning. Consent needs to be informed.

Only the real things are actual humans who have likely not consented to ever being in this database at all let alone having parts of their likeness being used for this horrific shit. There is no moral argument for this garbage:

The real DNA negates a lot of that unfortunately. If any family member also used the service they can use that to triangulate your identity.

Honestly, both here and on Reddit I see more of that blind faith for Google and Microsoft. It’s so weird that the open-source community has a slice of people insisting their giant company is somehow virtuous because it’s slightly less fashionable. Even weirder when they write paragraph’s psychoanalyzing imaginary people.

Wow that’s naive.

Google’s ad network and YouTube are pushing the agenda more than pretty much everyone.

So far so good though Shopify being a major sponsor makes me doubt their long term direction.

Yeah they need an angel like Max.

Wait till you find out about the internet and social media (including here).

Your proposal is equivalent to just letting bots completely control the internet. It kills it. We either want an internet or we don’t.

That hasn’t been true for a long time. Filtering bots has increasingly become more difficult, expensive, and sophisticated. Not to mention that there are still plenty of state sponsored bad actors using real people and hybrid approaches.