AnkhMorporkian

I'm 100% with you, an email is all it usually takes, but most people don't realize that. When your life and blood depends on competing with the people you work with, it's very simple to say "no."

But when you're just getting a start and think that "this contract is life or death"? It's a non-starter, you would never think of negotiating it.

It makes more sense for them to simply be illegal than negotiable for that very reason.

I've been working in software for a long time, and have been asked to sign non-competes over a dozen times by now.

I'm a contractor, which makes it much easier to turn down (how the hell could I possibly keep working with a non-compete?), but the OP is correct in that almost everything is a PDF nowadays. You have to bitch and scream to get a contract changed. Most naive workers won't understand that there's a negotiation process; they simply think that the contract represents the job.

That's already happening. I've had pull requests for WSL issues in a piece of software I support, and I've seen them in other places.

Not the worst thing in the world.

As a general concept I agree, but this is limited to your facebook friends. This isn't randomly joining a multiplayer server, this is intentionally adding friends to a space. Ostensibly, you should know them. Adding muting capabilities seems like some weird power play that'll just lead to bullying. If you don't want someone there, just remove them. Hell, unfriend them.

I apologize for the late reply, I have been out of state making a pitch, and enjoying the scenery after it was accepted.

I can see your viewpoint. I do remember the anti-linux Microsoft days, and I did not enjoy them as a company back then. However, I do think viral is an apt description of the license, despite the objections in this thread. As I mentioned before I left, I think viral is a good description of GPL. Viral is a feature, not a consequence. If you choose GPL, it's because you want that viral nature. If you're a company, you'll have to weigh that license against your business concerns.

Zealots may say something like "every piece of code should be open source in all circumstances", but pragmatists will realize that some code just doesn't make sense as open source, and making all derivatives of that open source.

So, long story short, someone who is in charge of open source consulting should understand better than anyone else that the GPL isn't appropriate for all companies. If the changed code is patented, GPL isn't appropriate in any circumstance, like it or not.

Many terms do. Socialists and communists still call themselves those terms despite McCarthyism and the red scare, the term queer is still used despite the fact that it was used as an insult for a very long time, the n-word's reappropriation despite its horrible history, and too many other examples for me to list.

Perhaps it's time for the FSF and its ilk to wear 'viral' as a badge of honor, instead of playing the semantics game.

I don't see 'viral' as an insult, I see it as a feature. I'm certainly pro-GPL, but I don't use it in too many of my projects. When I do use it, it's because I want that viral nature. When I don't, it's because I want people to have the freedom to modify it on their terms. However, pretending that every project should be licensed under copyleft licenses or that there's no room for criticism of the GPL smacks of zealotry.

As for the author, I don't have the full article, but he isn't listed on the 'Board Member', 'Leadership', or 'Technical Advisory Board' sections on the Linux Foundation webpage. Everyone there seems to have pretty damn fancy titles. I have no idea of his actual position in the hierarchy.

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. One person involved with the Linux Foundation wrote an article that used some terms this author and some others didn't like, and after some outcry the Linux Foundation removed it. Somehow this makes the entire organization a non-friend of Desktop Linux and the GPL?

It's just such a massive leap of logic. The GPL is in the most restrictive class of open-source licenses for companies, and it is viral by nature. Should those terms be sugar-coated? I didn't read an ounce of contempt in the quoted section.

They aren't allowed to sell or release personal identifiable information. That's not the case for server providers as they aren't considered carriers, and thus aren't beholden to the Telecommunications Act of 1986 in the same way your ISP is.

You're just shifting that responsibility to the server provider in that case. You have more privacy protections from your ISP than you do from someone you rent a server from.

That really isn't an option for most users. People who use a password manager are pretty much forced to use that password manager, at least if they're using it properly. Most users won't know how to export it to a CSV and then use that without a browser extension and/or import that to another password manager.

Not unless they have a security clearance or are in the military and have been ordered not to access them. For an ordinary citizen, it isn't illegal to have classified information as long as you weren't a party in their theft.

It's hairier for people with clearances. Technically you could have your clearance revoked for accessing classified information despite the fact that it's public. I don't know if that's ever happened, but it's a possibility.

I bet I could screw it up anyways.

Pfft, I immediately regret any code I write!

They aren't. Google upgrades to HTTPS automatically, and the old method of overriding the DNS to an unsecured Google server stopped working years ago. Same with Bing, Yahoo, DDG, etc. No SSL, no search in today's world.

I don't know, the assertion in the article makes little sense. The white part shouldn't play any role at all in this; easily reversible male contraception has been a dream of many for a long time. These companies want to maximize profits, and it's obvious that they aren't limiting their products and procedures to what they as middle-aged men would want. If they were, there'd be no products or procedures for women.

I think it's far more likely that these companies don't want to fund trials as it won't be nearly as profitable to them as current contraceptive options. If this was a pill instead, I have no doubt that the companies would champ at the bit for it. I think it's not coincidence that they could only find a non-profit to fund the trials for this specific product/procedure.

Strange, first time I noticed it! Maybe it's just because of the overwhelming amount of removed comments in this thread.

I have to say, I appreciate the explanations in this thread. It's a nice show of transparency that I didn't see in the past with removed comments.

They did think through it, but the rover has already exceeded its planned mission time by over 2.5 years! Wheels can't last indefinitely, and more than doubling the time of a 2 year mission before they see any wear is pretty incredible.

I think that argument can be countered by the prison culture from post WW1 up until the mid 70s. Until the "tough on crime" mantra was paraded around ad nauseum, prisons were largely focused on rehabilitation, not punishment.

Perhaps it was that calvanism somehow seeping back in, but the fact that we got rid of that for at least 40 years means that it's possible we can get back there.

Those cards are pretty standard in America too. If you open a checking account, you'll almost certainly get a Visa or Mastercard credit/debit card.

As someone who got out of the hospital recently after a couple weeks in, I see the continuity of care argument. I had a lot of doctors in my time there, and the left hand really didn't know what the right hand was doing. I spent an extra 4 days in because one of my doctors thought the other doctor was going to write the discharge order, and vice versa.

That requires the existence of exotic matter, something that really isn't known to exist at all, and it'd be pretty surprising if it did. Pretty much all FTL schemes require some exotic thing that's unlikely to actually be feasible in our universe.

I don't tend to link youtube videos on HN, particularly of the comedic type, but I'm just going to leave this here for anyone who wants a good laugh for their morning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I

I see no problem in it in that the two domains are very, very unlikely to be confused in context. Pretty much the only time confusion is likely to be sown is if there is a headlines akin to the one submitted here.

AFAICT, there's essentially no overlap of features beyond the fact that they're virtual file systems. The feature sets are completely different, and there's no intersection where if you read more than a few words into whatever you're looking at you'll be left scratching your head thinking "Oh jeez, which one is it this time?"

Ending a bash script in rm $1 doesn't magically make it not open source, just inherently self-destructive.

I'd argue that any organism is inherently open source, just not necessarily free and open source.

Yeah, absolutely. I am not a fan of mixing synchronous and asynchronous code, but the design of asyncio makes it very easy to do. I think that most people struggling with the concept don't realize that asyncio is inherently blocking when its being used (well, with the caveat of run_in_executor, but that's best left ignored for the purposes here)

You need to use the asyncio (or equivalent) event loop if you want to use the asnycio module. loop.run_until_complete() is synchronous though, so you would simply call that and it will block the control flow despite that function being async. You can definitely mix it with legacy code.

I would recommend against it, but if you had an existing framework, you could just make the endpoints lambdas that are something like:

    app.route("/whatever", lambda: loop.run_until_complete(async_handler_function()))

She needs better treatment, so perhaps someday she could live something even resembling a normal life. She already gets plenty of accomodations from the government and society as a whole, living in a group home, etc. I don't know what other accomodations could really be made.