RMS is a huge figure head and representative of free software, so it matters what he says and does.
I have seen no-one argue that everything RMS has said is bunk because of this, personally I think he has had some good ideas, sure; but that doesn't mean I just ignore everything else because "its politics and not free Software related".
Free Software is in itself political, maybe the links between RMS's words and actions, and Free Software are not direct or even close - but separating "politics" and Free Software just seems like burying your head in the sand.
A lot of the 'debunking' here is very poor, it assumes Stallman's innocence at every junction, argues that Stallman's word is more important than his actions, fails to engage with the full complexity of arguments against him, and more than once uses "but he's tender hearted, so he can't be bad" as an argument.
Certainly not "rational and objective" like it claims.
Yeah I think this it - it's to accommodate companions; technically the ability is not on a card in your actual deck/battlefield (making Rule 10 not applicable?) but an extra deck mechanic like Un-set contraptions, stickers etc. (although I do not know how "assemble a contraption" works on the one legal contraption card?).
EDIT: Also the inclusion of "traditional card(s)" probably gives companion wriggle room.
I would say that pure monetary value does effect power but with highly diminishing returns and even at the lowest cost the synergy and construction of the deck is more important.
The most expensive card I own is Sheoldred, The Apocalypse - and I always take her out of my decks because she just doesn't synergise with them. Yeah it's powerful, yeah it doesn't weaken my infect deck (for example), but a dirt cheap Blightbelly Rat is far more valuable to me in that deck if I want to do the things my deck is supposed to do, have fun, and have a good chance of winning.
I can't disagree with you on that, you're absolutely right - I suppose my read just gives the author the benefit of the doubt that it's not 'better AI' that we deserve, but a better internet (i.e. with no AI whatsoever).
Personally I read it as a general "demand better", "don't accept crap wrapped in gold" as an offensive principle against (de)generative AI. Perhaps I'm inserting my own positive spin on their words, but it seems to me that their point is "don't let the hype win"; if these companies are pushing AI, forming dependencies on bad tech, then we need to say "not good enough" and push back on the BS. Deny the ability of low quality garbage to 'fulfil' our needs. It's not a directly practical line to be sure (how do we do this exactly?), but it does drill down past "AI is bad" to a more fundamental (and arguably motivating) point - that we, all of us, deserve better than to drown in a sea of crap and that's still important.
Maybe try opening Calibre proper and adding the pdf to your library first? It should work the way you're doing it, not sure why it's hanging like that - unless there's a problem with your Library location?
I feel like this is just investing in the tech hype of AI - AI/LLMs are really just probability calculators, if very impressive ones.
We're not going to see 'god-like' AI run rampart and become sentient (at least not any time soon) - the real dangers of AI are the applications of it that are done my humans. The people who force it into spheres that it is ill-equipped to benefit, to undercut people who's work can be 'replaced' or 'enhanced' by AI.
AI will inevitably be harmful. But not because it becomes uber-advanced; it will be harmful because techbros and grifters will use it badly, driven by money, hype or plain stupidity. Believing AI is more advanced than it is just feeds into the human machine that's going to do real harm.
Thanks - will do!