That might also be the case, but that then raises the question of the quality of PRs in order to judge the contribution quality of "anonymous" contributors.
We hypothesized that pull requests made by women are less likely to be accepted than those made by men. Prior work on gender bias in hiring – that women tend to have resumes less favorably evaluated than men (5) – suggests that this hypothesis may be true.
To evaluate this hypothesis, we looked at the pull status of every pull request submitted by women compared to those submitted by men. We then calculate the merge rate and corresponding confidence interval, using the Clopper-Pearson exact method (15), and find the following:
Open
Closed
Merged
Merge Rate
95% Confidence Interval
Women
8,216
21,890
111,011
78.6%
[78.45%, 78.87%]
Men
150,248
591,785
2,181,517
74.6%
[74.56%, 74.67%]
4 percentage point difference overall.
Pull requests can be made by anyone, including both insiders (explicitly authorized owners and collaborators) and outsiders (other GitHub users). If we exclude insiders from our analysis, the women’s acceptance rate (64.4%) continues to be significantly higher than men’s (62.7%) (χ2(df = 2, n = 2, 473, 190) = 492, p < .001)
Emphasis mine. that's 1.7 percentage points.
The final paragraph also omits how the acceptance changes after gender is "revealed" (username, profile image). The graph doesn't help either
For outsiders, we see evidence for gender bias: women’s acceptance rates are 71.8% when they use gender neutral profiles, but drop to 62.5% when their gender is identifiable. There is a similar drop for men, but the effect is not as strong. Women have a higher acceptance rate
of pull requests overall (as we reported earlier), but when they’re outsiders and their gender is identifiable, they have a lower acceptance rate than men.
So women drop from 71.8% to 62.5% = 9,3 percentage points, and they say it's more than men, but don't reveal the difference. Only graph has an indication (unless I'm missing a table) and it may be 5 (?) percentage points for men. Which would be about 4 percentage points between both genders.
Figure 5: Pull request acceptance rate by gender and perceived gender, with 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals, for insiders (left) and outsiders (right)
The conclusion:
Our results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless.
That's quite exaggerated for <=5 percentage points. Especially for the number of people involved.
Out of 4,037,953 GitHub user profiles with email addresses, we were able to identify 1,426,121 (35.3%) of them as men or women through their public Google+ profiles.
Maybe I missed it, but how many of those were women and how many made PRs?
in a 2013 survey of the more than 2000 open source developers who indicated a gender, only 11.2% were women
Let's compare the PR rate per gender:
Let's say the percentage of women did not increase since 2013, which I'd find difficult to believe, that's 1,269,247 men and 156,873 women. Men made 150,248 + 591,785 + 2,181,517 = 2,923,550 PRs. Women made 8,216 + 21,890 + 111,011 = 141,117 PRs. That's ~2.3 PRs per man and ~0,9 PRs per woman. If the percentage changed and more women became contributors, that would decrease the PRs per woman.
That leads me to ask:
are women more hesitant to contribute PRs that might not be merged? if so, it might contribute to why their PRs are merged more often
are the women with accounts on github more likely to be people who have some kind of education in the IT field? if there are less hobbyist women (percentage-wise) on github, and more hobbyist men who just chuck their stuff online then decide to contribute to a project, it might contribute to PR acceptance (you're comparing pros to amateurs)
what does a similar acceptance rate for double the amount of PRs for men actually say? I don't know, but it might be pertinent.
I very much encourage humans to contribute to opensource. So, while this paper says something about the current state of things, it doesn't seem like it's saying much. The differences in pull request acceptance are not very significant (<5 percentage points) to me
From what I understand LLMs are just large heuristic machines. They gather a lot of statistics on token order and return an answer to that with something that statistically should higher than other options. There's no "understanding". So to answer your question, no, they don't understand the license.
Content is most likely scraped wholesale from websites, possibly run through some clean up to possibly filter out absolute garbage, and fed into an LLM to train it. An LLM can be tricked to reveal its training data (e.g repeat "fruit" forever). It's in those cases where copyright infringement is detected and if action can and has be taken. There are court cases currently in review, the most popular being the one against Github Copilot for infringing on the license of sourcecode it ingested.
Ares! I can't find an English wikipedia article about it 😮 Just found out it was written in delphi and opensource.
Those were the days... DC++, Ares, Limewire, Napster, Emule, Bearshare... so many things just to download the latest Linkin Park. Only for it to end up being porn 😅
That's probably KDE - the K Desktop Environment. Linux variants are called "distributions" and they are basically software bundles maintained by groups.
Desktop environments are basically bundled themes and software to present a desktop, bars, effects, and so on. Windows basically has one desktop environment, but linux has many: Most popular are KDE (windows like) and Gnome (Mac like), but there are more like Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt, LXDE, which look more like windows.
Desktop environments also have window managers - they do what they say, manage your windows: maximize and minimize them, stack them (stacking window managers), tile them (tiling window managers), or even allow only one window at a time (like kiosks).
If you want to start your linux journey, grab bazzite if you want to game or linux mint debian edition (comes standard with cinnamon desktop environment, but you have the choice during installation to use KDE too) and give it a go!
You can also test distros (linux mint for example) online!
tbh, I know little about the capabilities of the Great Firewall. Maybe it already is possible to circumvent it with a VPN or an anonymity network like I2P or TOR. Also don't know if they block per IP or in blocks. Possibly hosting the peertube instance on public cloud infra would make it difficult to block if the IP changed at certain intervals.
Hosting peertube could however provide dissenters with more options than youtube.