Researchers from AquaSec have noted its ability to automatically switch to backup mining pools if a primary one becomes unavailable, ensuring continuous operation. This level of sophistication has led security experts to believe that large language models or other automation frameworks may have played a role in its development.
Is it just me or is this not a very convincing rationale.
It's just a consequence of independent file formats. There's bound to be overlap in what counts as technically a valid X and also technically a valid Y. It's pretty much unavoidable. The tricky part is figuring out what fits in that sliver of the venn diagram but is also useful as malware.
I understand the definition of "Freedom" as laid out by e.g. the FSF. I was explaining why your argumentation is not convincing unless the audience already agrees that complicity in genocide is an acceptable tradeoff to software freedoms. I'm saying you could make a more convincing argument by just not making that comparison in the first place. Unless your point was "perhaps we should reconsider whether Open Source is Good".
This assumes the audience will agree that genocide is an acceptable tradeoff for software freedoms.
I don't know if "freedom to modify source code" and "committing a genocide" are morally comparable. This seems to undermine your point. I would have picked a different analogy
From numpy's docs:
The bool_ data type is very similar to the Python bool but does not inherit from it because Python’s bool does not allow itself to be inherited from, and on the C-level the size of the actual bool data is not the same as a Python Boolean scalar.
and likewise:
The int_ type does not inherit from the int built-in under Python 3, because type int is no longer a fixed-width integer type.
are there ligatures for monospace fonts that don't preserve the width of the characters?
In fact, that model (conceptually, though not technically) is how most fediverse software already work