Yeah, it definitely is more appealing from a marketing perspective.
I do understand why some projects might wanna use the term, it's to their advantage to be associated with "open source" even if the source code itself has a proprietary license.
The problem is that then it makes it harder / more confusing to check for actually openly licensed code, since then it's not clear what term to use. Already "free software" can be confused with "free as in free beer".
Yes, I don't think it's just about the execution of Win32 code, but also the possibility of MS using marketing techniques and dirty manipulation methods to give themselves advantages within the Windows platform to sway the general public to their store in a similar manner as how they push their browser, their MS Teams communication platform, their One Drive Cloud Storage, their search engine, their data-collection tech, their assistant, etc.
The average Windows user would easily be put off by the project if they tried it this early. I feel it'd actually be better if they don't release on Windows until they are ready. That way they can get better press when it finally releases on Windows.
Only if they use it the same way and within the same context. But isn't that what always happens when a new gaming system/idea explodes and clones start poping up? I don't think that matters much, in fact competition might actually be a good thing.
The article talks about how they are ok with using AI for things outside generating images, texts and so. For example, they are fine using the rudimentary AI of any typical enemy in one of their games. So I expect procedural generation that does not rely on trained bayesian network models is ok for them.
It looks like they just seem to be concerned about the legality of it... so they might just start using it as soon as the legal situation for AI models is made safe.
The thing is that being "willfully ignorant" has served them well, so it makes it the smart move when the goal is "line go up".
Give me money and call me stupid, why would I care what a few "smart" people think when millions of "stupid" people give me all I want?
This.
I don't understand the appeal of microblogging. The content is generally very low quality, the signal-to-noise ratio is horrible... I'm not interested in the shower thoughts of any particular individual ...or in marketing stunts.
The only individuals I'm interested on are my family & friends, and even for them I'd rather use a more private platform.
And when I want to read a public post I'd rather it's well thought and ideally not restricted by micro-limitations. Even better if it's curated by a public voting process among a community of people with my same interests, or some other process that makes it so I don't have to waste my time going through tons of content I'm not remotelly interested on.
I expect it would be technically possible to have lemmy-like or peertube-like services built on top of the AT protocol Bluesky uses, like with ActivityPub. And I expect if/when that happens the communication across services would probably work too.
In fact, accounts being "portable" in the AT protocol can potentially make the integration more seamless across different services, not only might the posts be seen from different services, but you might be able to directly access those different services with the same account. Imagine if you could login in lemmy with a mastodon account or vice-versa.
Bluesky is just one of the possible services. But as long as the invites are private and you can't host your own instance, I wouldn't even consider it an alternative. I think it's a bit early to judge, both its positives and its negatives.
Yes, but the question is: what does matrix need to establish itself as a solid alternative?
You can't answer that by saying "people don't use it, change that" because that's something only people can change, not matrix, that'd lead to a cyclic problem.
Specially when that's given as a counterpoint to justify not wanting to do the change for "this community". It's contradictory to want its popularity to be changed but accept the lack of change alone as a valid reason to justify your communities not changing.
Why not just go for Tox or some other P2P serverless communication system? They can't ban / go after a system that has no central servers, can they?
You share public keys when registering the passkey on a third party service, but for the portability of the keys to other password managers (what the article is about) the private ones do need to be transferred (that's the whole point of making them portable).
I think the phishing concerns are about attackers using this new portability feature to get a user (via phishing / social engineering) to export/move their passkeys to the attacker's store. The point is that portability shouldn't be so user-friendly / transparent that it becomes exploitable.
That said, I don't know if this new protocol makes things THAT easy to port (probably not?).