• 1 Post
  • 32 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 14th, 2023

help-circle









  • I’ve got some skepticism alarms going off on this one.

    What exactly does “basically reverse engineered some assembly” mean here? Decompiled to C?

    And what do you mean by “remake in assembly”? Like, literally writing assembly by hand? Or compiling C source?

    I’m not a lawyer, but my guess is that binary-to-binary translation isn’t enough to strip the license, even if you’re making a pit stop in a higher-level language.



  • Just to be clear: this is not about protecting people.

    This is just another squeeze, wringing the next few drops of accountability out of their sector.

    They’re not really employing the drivers, so they’re not responsible for vetting them. And they’re not really selling rides, so they’re not responsible for what happens during one.

    So what’s next? “Oh, we told drivers to get interior cameras, we told riders to be careful, we gave them checkboxes!”

    Anything at all that they can spin as a value-add to shareholders, rather than allowing for any amount of responsibility towards the well-being of people who interact with their systems.


  • This analysis is spot-on. I especially think you’re onto something with your reference to the commons. (Edit: The generative AI movement could be a seen as a modern reincarnation of enclosure)

    These guys think of a commons in a sense of ownership: if I own something, I can do whatever I want with it.

    But the real historical examples of a commons are more like a mutual obligation. It’s a relationship, not a delivery of inert goods. Yes, you get access to the benefits of the commons, but that comes hand-in-hand with accepting the duty to care for the commons as an ongoing entity.

    That’s what really irks me about all of this. They didn’t “steal” something. They killed a collective organism.