I was responding to the following paragraph in the article:

We used to get proof-of-thought for free because producing a patch took real effort. Now that writing code is cheap, verification becomes the real proof-of-work. I mean proof of work in the original sense: effort that leaves a trail: careful reviews, assumption checks, simulations, stress tests, design notes, postmortems. That trail is hard to fake. [emphasis mine] In a world where AI says anything with confidence and the tone never changes, skepticism becomes the scarce resource.

I am a bit wary that the trail of verification will continue to be so "hard to fake".

Unfortunately, the next step is for AI to get better and better at generating verification trails that look correct but are not.

Yeah, the transition from the third frame to the fourth frame just doesn't make sense as currently depicted; why would people playing video games suddenly start to revolt?

However, if the third frame were to depict rich men getting richer as you suggest, then the revolt in the fourth frame would make more sense.

So you do not like the uutils developers because they think that Rust is the solution to everything?

Nor will the cult of Rust haters.

GNU coreutils is not going anywhere or having its license be weakened.

But anyway, I am glad that you are brave enough to be willing to personally punish people for using a license that you do not prefer.

So now you are going to start tarring and feathering anyone who decides to start a project using the MIT license, or at least engage in an equivalent level of verbal violence at every possible opportunity?

And the whole of mathematics became classier as a result!

Okay, but is this group trying to re-write all of the GPL software in the Linux ecosystem with an MIT license? I ask this because I think that the words "first step" are doing a lot of the lifting in your argument.

And just to be clear, my objection is not to people disagreeing with the license; in fact, as I have said elsewhere--though I hardly expect you to have read all of my comments here!--I think that the underlying criticism is actually reasonable, I just also think that the extent of the concern is exaggerated in practice in this specific case (which is why I keep trying to pin people down on specifics rather than generalities). Again, my objection is that people feel the need to post the same inane comments with varying degree of toxicity (such referring to them as using a "cuck" license) complaining about it in every single post.

I have not been given a specific example of a scenario involving uutils, I have only been told about scenarios for unrelated and very different projects, and the difference between the situations is significant enough that you can't simply point to them and declare that your point has automatically been proven. In fact, I would argue that uutils is such a different case that it is implausible that such a scenario could occur and become a big problem.

And yes, people stopping complaining about work being done on a project they are not involved with in every single post discussing it would be a perfectly fine outcome for me. But if they are not going to do that, then I would also be happy with getting my questions answered because I believe that they are relevant.

It is not just that these complaints are noise, but that they contribute to a general environment of toxicity by complaining about other people working on a project they are passionate about, which is something I abhor. To the extent that I am coming across as being toxic myself (which is not an unreasonable viewpoint in many, but not all, cases), I consider that to be me holding up a mirror of the comment I am responding to.

I concur. Not paying attention to my phone when I have better things to be paying attention to is not that hard for me at all, but maybe I just am weird for not being addicted to social media and/or constant external stimulation?