It’s a good analysis, but not really specific to code, the exact same ideas apply to AI-generated text, images, music, etc.

This would actually not meet the criteria of free and open source software if it were real.

I think the study is this: https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/pes/38/3/article-p268.xml

This is linked to in this article about the same study https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000336466/warum-bildschirmzeit-das-gehirn-von-kindern-sogar-foerdern-kann but as that is in German, I obviously posted it only to communities in German, not here.

from proprietary software, not from Microsoft; nothing wrong with using free software just because it was developed by Microsoft

I thought the goal was precisely not profit? 😂😂😂

But yes, this is exactly what I meant.

“Web” means HTTP and HTML.

I fail to understand the point of this.

If the goal is to be able to deliver documents without any JS, cookies, tracking, etc., then why not just deliver documents that way through the web? No one is forcing anyone to put those things on any website.

No, they are both not really suitable for that. But I don’t see where the link in the OP implies they plan to store binary image data in XML, they’re probably going to store that in a binary format and use XML to describe relationships and other metadata.

IMHO: XML is superior as a document storage format. JSON is superior as a data transfer format.

forcing AI providers to watermark AI generated text would be quite effective

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit

Nor to me - but it doesn’t make a lot of sense with images either.

Text is literally just an array of numbers (Unicode character points); where do you put “invisible” watermarks there? Images are, likewise, a three-dimensional array of pixel color values; while it’s possible to very slightly vary those color values and call that “watermarking” (similar concept: steganography), how does that not get lost even unintentionally on the first lossy compression step?!

You know, the evil bit used to be a joke, now people unironically suggest equivalent things…

I would not do that without first looking into applicable laws regarding legal liability for content and requirements to remove things. Depending on where in the world you are, this can be a minefield.

Yes, this is true (although the name change happened years before the major version was no longer 10) and doesn’t contradict anything I wrote. But the first version of Mac OS X was an entirely new OS technologically unrelated to Mac OS 9; not the case for later version jumps.

True, that usually costs money though, while Tor is free.

In general no, at least according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS#macOS the name change happened several years before the architecture change. But I don’t know what the distinction is on that graph; it’s possible it just depends on how the OS is called in the user agent string?

The OS was renamed at some point; the first versions of the Unix/NEXTstep-based OS made by Apple were named Mac OS X, then at some point they switched to “OS X” (which hardly anyone ever actually said), then at some point to “macOS”. So it’s somewhat silly that they are separate lines and I don’t know what the difference is on that graph.

except that laws about social media usually target any online service regardless of technology

I don’t see Tor solving the problem of I.D. verification on social media, for example.

It does by disguising the location you’re accessing the website from, which may or may not have such laws.

I was wondering how much closer it can get than it is now… then I noticed the date.