I think you misunderstand the CCP part a bit. This guy used to be a minister of foreign affairs, so he had access to critical, secret information from inner circles of the EU. His boss is now Wang Chuanfu, a member of the CCP. Even if you contest the fact of this having any strategical consequences for the EU, I hope we all agree that this pairing is at minimum: awkward :)

Well, I see two categories of langague that are being taken under a single umbrella here:

• Natural every-day language, to which my point still stands. “Lying” definitely falls into this category. I can only repeat here the above, we simply talk like this. You cannot expect human language to be 100% formal precise all the time in this sense.
• More formal definitions. Yes, here I agree a bit that these should be as precise as possible. But when it comes to definitions, I also don’t think this is something that affects our ability to talk about it. When a paper or a dictionary defines what a term means, that’s the meaning we imply by using the term. Not the parts the term is made up from. There are plenty of latine names for animals and plants that we use, even though the individual parts of the name are not actually true about that animal and come from misdocumentation or a misconception. Nazis are not socialist, despite their name conatining the word. What I do agree with is that the imprecise naming might cause confusion when being new to the term, but once the talking and thinking starts, you would already be at a point where you know what the term means.

I have to be honest, reading this article gave me a bit of a bad mouth taste, but let’s see if someone here in the comments sees it otherwise. We anthropomorphise so many things as part of language; not because we think they are human, but simply because it eases the use of language. When I say that a vending machine gave me an error code, I don’t literally mean that it handed something to me… Critisizing “AI” as a piece of terminology is not critisizing AI, it is critisizing natural language. Changing language around “probabilistic automation” (the proposed terminology to replace “AI”) will not change anything about the moral, ecologic and legal problems that people in this lemmy channel take issue with.

I wouldn’t really categorise it as a fuckup. These are unofficial packages from the AUR. You should trust them as much as random install scripts from a no-name website or git repo.

I should have been clearer with the intent of my post. The intent was more along the lines of asking people to help point out to me some detail on the topic which I might have missed, because this loophole seems to be too obvious and dangerous to FOSS…

As the EUPL FAQ (written by EU lawyers) also points out, Directive EC 2009/24 states in point 15:

Nevertheless, circumstances may exist when such a reproduction of the code and translation of its form are indispensable to obtain the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs. It has therefore to be considered that, in these limited circumstances only, performance of the acts of reproduction and translation by or on behalf of a person having a right to use a copy of the program is legitimate and compatible with fair practice and must therefore be deemed not to require the authorisation of the rightholder. An objective of this exception is to make it possible to connect all components of a computer system, including those of different manufacturers, so that they can work together.

However, there is a last sentence in this point, which I only realised now that it might be the answer to my question! So good that you questioned it.

Such an exception to the author’s exclusive rights may not be used in a way which prejudices the legitimate interests of the rightholder or which conflicts with a normal exploitation of the program.

Maybe in court the exploitative nature of the hypothetical in my post would be covered by this. Though, this moves the matter towards some gray zone, where the question is where the line of explotiation lies. Is a plugin system, where by default the software functions as before, but functionality can be expanded with “premium” plugins that make algorithms in the software more precise or fast considered exploitative?

It might be not this simple in case of notification providers, the notifications are somehow sent in the name of the app I guess. And don’t forget: in general, this principle is true for most of your apps that send notifications. I.e. if you are getting Signal or Facebook notifications, it uses the same principle.

Btw, google is not the only notification service for android. Check up on Unified Push, there are many alternatives to do this, and there are some apps that support these alternatives in their non-play-store builds.

In general, notifications on Android don’t go through apps, that would require apps to run all the time and consume too much battery. They instead are going through a notification provider (google in the default case). This is why your notifications arrive, but you have no other connections to your HA.

Edit for clarification: HA uploads it to google servers (which of course doesn’t need port forwarding) and your phone then polls them from google.

No. The issue is that an assumption they make in the unsafe block does not actually always hold true. They changed the safe rust code to strenghten the (incorrect) assumption they made in the first place, because that is way easier than rearchitecting the unsafe part. I.e. if the unsafe part was somehow to be written safely, the mitigation they introduced now would not result in any difference in behaviour, it would be correct behaviour both before and after.

Tldr: the problem lies in the unsafe part

It’s my turn to do the obligatory mention of SourceHut :)

It is in alpha, but it is really promising. It is going all-in on email based git workflows (which was the original way of doing it before the github-style PR based workflow). I love the style and it’s minimalism - but don’t let that fool you, it has many features that you might not see at first glance. Imagine if cgit or gitweb was extended into a software forge with built-in support for email patches, mailing lists, issue tracking and CI.

If you are the type of person who attracts garbage issue tickets and often has to reject low-effort PRs on your projects, it forces a really good minimum entrance bar. Of course this comes at the cost of visibility of your projects, less networking effect, so I would suggest to not use it if you want easy visibility and 3rd party contribution on your projects.