Yes, she said that. But what she said there just doesn't make any sense.

I thought she made some very good points, but the quote in the title makes no sense to me.

But it's not "from each according to his ability". FOSS is what people feel like contributing. And it's not "to each according to their need". It's take it or leave it, unless someone feels like fulfilling requests.

Traditionally, the slogan meant a duty to work. Contributing what you feel like is just charity.

Capitalism, at its core, is private control of the capital. Copyright law turns code into intellectual property/capital. I've read the argument that copyleft requires strong copyrights. That argument implicitly makes copyleft a feature of capitalism. You know how rich people or corporations sometimes donate large sums to get their name on something, EG a hospital wing? That's not so different from a FOSS license that requires attribution.

The article alleges, though without evidence, that the tracking is just an excuse to raise rates.

A quick search didn't turn up quite the right statistics, but traffic fatalities have been seriously on the rise in the US. That probably implies higher payouts. (WP)

But also, when trackable unsafe drivers have to pay more (and trackable safe driver less), then the unsafe drivers will prefer to be untrackable. You may be on the receiving end of the recalculated actuary tables.

that will ultimately be used to create huge amounts of wealth for very few,

But... That is what these poisoning attacks are fighting for. They are attacking open image generators that can be used by anyone. You can use them for fun or for business, without having to pay rent to some owner who is not lifting a finger. What do you think will happen if you knock that out?

This attack doesn't target Big Tech, at all. The model has to be open to pull off an attack like that.

This doesn't have anything to do with tracking. This is supposed to sabotage free and open image generators (ie stable diffusion). It's unlikely to do anything, though.

Hard to say what the makers want to achieve with this. Even if it did work, it would help artists just as much, as better DRM would help programmers. On its face, this is just about enforcing some ultra-capitalist ideology that wants information to be owned.

@[email protected] Translate this to old English.

@[email protected] Answer the previous comment in old English as a redditor would.

Trivia (from Wikipedia): "Taxman" from their 1966 album Revolver was the group's first topical song and the first political statement they had made in their music.

"Taxman" was influential in the development of British psychedelia and mod-style pop, and has been recognised as a precursor to punk rock. When performing "Taxman" on tour in the early 1990s, Harrison adapted the lyrics to reference contemporaneous leaders, citing its enduring quality beyond the 1960s. The song's impact has extended to the tax industry and into political discourse on taxation.

Unlike their other political songs, which are fairly vague peace&love jobs, this one tackles a concrete issue: It protests the 95% top marginal tax rate.

You've heard how "the boomers" screwed up everything for later generations. Here's exhibit A from pop culture. Don't just think about evil, old men in smoky backrooms.

What I don't want in charge, is a shadowy cabal of a few rich people only bound to the maximization of their own profit.

I'm not paying extra to remove what little democratic control there is in the existing system.