Huh, looks like GODOT’s interface building tools are about to become a lightweight, quick platform for developing non-game apps.

… horrifying.

Reminds me of this initiative: Citizen Zoo Is Rewilding the UK, One Grasshopper at a Time

Micro-usb will haunt us for a while longer…

it is!

You make a good point there, it does seem quite ineffectual on closer examination.

I’m still enamoured with the idea that we can take a stance, even on a repo-level (ecological thinking shouldn’t somehow be de-coupled from source code as a default?). What do you think could be more effective on a software/repo/licensing level instead?

yes & no, I think? In the linked repo there are a list of the most commonly used repos in repos connected to explicit fossil fuel usage, so there seems to be little evidence that they are feeling that uncomfortable with non-permissive licenses that they outright avoid them.

Those are couple of new names, I’ll check them out: thanks!

Well, any idea can be taken to extremes and deemed meaningless. That said, if these kinds of initiative can help spread ecological awreness to areas typically spared for much discourse/focus on the environment I’m all for them. The goal can’t be “any one solution to fix all”, but rather a multitude of small, hopefully at times overlapping approaches (diversity is important in the face of wicked problems imho).

Yup, enforcement is a tricky one, I do like the idea of adding some notes of ecological awareness to something as typically “platonic” as a repo though, after all even if tech is in itself neutral: its usage really isn’t.

Yeah, it could be a little more refined, but at least it seems to work as a conversation starter (that might have been their intention?)

I guess the authors wanted to host it where it was the most relevant? Also, what are the best github alternatives nowadays?

I’m not disagreeing with you, at least in terms of FOSS it’s highly problematic.

That said, we have a long way to go before we are even close to reaching any sensible climate goals and with the urgency of the matter I’m inclined to wonder if initiatives like this, messy as they may be, are in fact necessary as part of creating a prevalent feedback loop that supports change (on all levels).

I mean, the fossil fuel industry already has at least one successful example of a green transition being feasible (and if you insist, also profitable).

The current state of software, especially ML fields that are being actively used in all industries, really doesn’t have any stance towards fossil fuels in any real, visible way. Even if this license isn’t exactly a solution, I’d like to see it inspire some more compatible responses.

Inkplate also seems to be an option.

Agreed, there’s definitely a lot of potential with this kind of license (although they may be too narrow in their definition, it could be a slightly more widely aimed license would be more effective in practice)

“Sadly” they are pre-rendered, at least in this case and most of the most popular “this X does not exist” pages out there, as querying a GAN would be very costly if done per page load (requires a beefy GPU to render each image).

In the future we may get a nice balance between more lightweight models and more user computing power that would allow for a different setup, but for GANs that simply isn’t the case yet (at meaningful resolutions).

Sure, I very much agree they could have made it more legible.

TLDR: The gist of it is a compilation of information about Autodesk supplying (uncritically) software to the coal mining industry, the attempts to confront them on that and the vague, general responses they’ve eventually given.

Some of the important points paraphrased here:

• A 12K year old forest Hambach, Germany, is being cleared away with villages etc. being razed in the process as part of coal mining operations.

• Apparently largest coal mine in Europe, responsible for “100 million tons of CO2 emissions per year”.

• Operations are in part driven with the help of the Autodesk software “Inventor”, which until they were repeatedly called out by the activist who made the linked autodesk.earth webpage, they described as a “success story”.

• Multiple attempts to reach out of them have been stonewalled and led to this page/project attempting to make Autodesk commit more to sustainable operations.

Also, A more full (and readable) presentation by the activist of what the project is try to accomplish I found here.

This is pretty interesting, I would love to see this compared to other urban farming solutions in regard to cost/yield/efficiency (e.g. infarm etc.).