The last open source version of MinIO didn't disappear when they stopped maintaining it.
2,227 karma · joined April 1, 2025
Free software developers are gifting you something. Expecting indefinite free work is not mutual respect. That's entitlement.
The common is still there. You have the code. Open source is not a perpetual service agreement. It is not indentured servitude to the community.
Stop trying to guilt trip people into giving you free work.
You can care about the work and your customer will still setting healthy boundaries and accepting that wanting to do good work for them doesn't mean you are beside them.
Business is fundamentally about partnership, transactional and moneyed partnerships, but partnership still. It's best when both suppliers and customers are aware of that and like any partnership, it structured and can be stopped by both partners. You don't technically owe them more than what's in the contract and that puts a hard stop which is easy to identify if needed.
Free users certainly would like it to be a social contract like I would like to be gifted a million dollars. Sadly, I still have to work and can't infinitely rely on the generosity of others.
People who don't pay are often not really invested. The relationship between more work means more costs doesn't exist for them. That can make them quite a pain in my experience.
FOSS is not a moral contract. People working for free owe nothing to no one. You got what's on the tin - the code is as open source once they stop as when they started.
The underlying assumption of your message is that you are somehow entitled to their continued labour which is absolutely not the case.
Watermarking might not be enough to prove that the person doing the distribution is the same one responsible of the leak. I fear at most it will be a contractual dispute between the person who received the watermarked file and the original distributor without the ability to easily link the overall counterfeiting charges.
But anyway, I don't think they really need to do that. They just need to shutdown any unauthorized distributors that make things too easy. As long as the friction introduced can convince people to pay a low subscription fee, they will be fine.
It's actually both surprisingly meaningful and quite precise in its meaning which also makes it completely unintelligible if you don't know the words it uses.
Ordered field: satisfying the properties of an algebraic field - so a set, an addition and a multiplication with the proper properties for these operations - with a total order, a binary relation with the proper properties.
Usual topology: we will use the most common metric (a function with a set of properties) on R so the absolute value of the difference
Finite-dimentional: can be generated using only a finite number of elements
Commutative: the operation will give the same result for (a x b) and (b x a)
Unital: as an element which acts like 1 and return the same element when applied so (1 x a) = a
R-algebra: a formally defined algebraic object involving a set and three operations following multiple rules
Algebraically closed: a property on the polynomial of this algebra to be respected. They must always have a root. Untrue in R because of negative. That's basically introducing i as a structural necessity.
Admits a notion of differentiation with reasonable spectral behaviour: This is the most fuzzy part. Differentiation means we can build a notion of derivatives for functions on it which is essential for calculus to work. The part about spectral behavior is probably to disqualify weird algebra isomorphic to C but where differentiation behaves differently. It seems redondant to me if you already have a finite-dimentional algebra.
It's not really complicated. It's more about being familiar with what the expression means. It's basically a fancy way to say that if you ask for something looking like R with a calculus acting like the one of functions on R but in higher dimensions, you get C.
There is not evidence for C. It's a construction. Obviously it shows up in physics models. They are built using mathematical formalism.
If multiple definitions turn out to be isomorphic, that's generally because there is an underlying structure linking the properties together.
To me, the question doesn't even make sense. There is no disagreement here and I don't understand what is an essential structure. All the properties presented on the complex are consistent. They all exist. There is nothing ever essential about mathematics.
I mean, it's just mathematics. As long as you are internally consistent with your axioms, things just are. It's like asking if water is a liquid or a collection of molecules. There is nothing to disagree about here.
You think he wasn't condemned because he expressed pro-democracy view and this is not a speech issue?
I would like to read it rather than vague call for nuance.
I am genuinely lost in your argument. You start against colonialism then justify Hong-Kong being reintegrated to China because they would have taken it by force anyway which is pretty much the same thing as colonialism.
You then pivot to arguing HK was always going to be part of China for a reason I find unclear. Hong-Kong was never part of the PRC before the handover so I don't really see the appeal to continuity.
Have you considered that people are not arguing for colonialism but actually against any form of coercitive control?
Are you arguing that it's legitimate to put a 78 years old from a former democratic city forcefully reintegrated to another state in jail for 20 years because he is saying that the will of the people should be heard?
We are at a point where the market is so concentrated that nobody wants to invest in production capacity anymore as everyone wants margins to stay high. So when companies pivot to new niche like data centers, you see penuries on the consumer markets with nothing happening to solve the issue. The boom and bust cycle seems over at least as long as demands stay stable. Baring a crash of the IA economy, I don't see any short term change coming from the key manufacturers.
Yet, what I find fascinating is that the whole oligopoly has pivoted so hard, they couldn't quickly pivot back to protect these markets if challenged. There is a unique opportunity for new comers if they can get the manufacturing capacities. Some Chinese manufacturers who used to make low grade chips could be tempted. They might be impaired by the new geopolitical situation however and the tarifs.
Durov wasn't arrested because of things he said or things that were said on his platform, he was arrested because he refused to cooperate in criminal investigations while he allegedly knew they were happening on a platform he manages.
If you own a bar, you know people are dealing drugs in the backroom and you refuse to assist the police, you are guilty of aiding and abetting. Well, it's the same for Durov except he apparently also helped them process the money.
People can disagree about how to name things all they want. It doesn't change their intrinsic nature. This is all a word soup mumbo-jumbo with no impact on the ontological reality of what we are looking at.
It doesn't matter if you call that consciouness, life or pain if harming it makes you feel bad and if it retaliates.
I don't even care if this neo-vitalism makes sense. The point it's trying to settle is in and of itself inconsequential.
Durov was held on suspicion Telegram was willingly failing to moderate its platform and allowed drug trafficking and other illegal activities to take place.
X has allegedly illegally sent data to the US in violation of GDPR and contributed to child porn distribution.
Note that both are directly related to direct violation of data safety law or association with a separate criminal activities, neither is about speech.
If you use Linux like MacOS and only run static binaries and containerized programs via things like flatpak everything is fine.
It's totally possible to treat the distro simply as a thin base layer and get everything else from flatpak and the various container hubs. It does work great.
That's why somme statistics look weird. That's also why things heavily relying on demographic data need to be question. It's particularly significant when it comes to green house gas emissions for example and climate modeling.
Beginner: I know nothing and this topic seems impossible to grasp.
Advanced beginner: I get it now. It's pretty simple.
Intermedite: Hmm, this thing is actually very complicated.
Expert: It's not that complicated. I can explain a simple core covering 80% of it. The other 20% is an ocean of complexity.
It doesn't matter if you are not technically in a dominant position if your special role in a large ecosystem basically allows you to act like one in your own purview.
You could say this kind of move invites more scrutiny but the regulators are already there watching every Apple's move with a microscope and their patience with Apple attempts at thwarting compliance is apparently wearing thin at least in the EU if you look at preliminary findings.
Hardly, you are intentionally looking at peak consumption because it suits the answer you want after being proved wrong. This is nicely highlighted by how you want to casually dismiss benchmarks which don't support your point.
> Your argument is that, since manufacturers are putting larger batteries in phones, SoC power consumption shouldn’t matter. That is moving the goalpost, because you introduce a variable that should be irrelevant to SoC performance testing to dismiss my observation.
No, that is looking at the actual experience of using the phone. Peak consumption is a useless metric. Nobody cares. People care about their phone feeling smooth and how often they have to charge. From this point of view, Apple has no lead whatsoever provided by their SoC while they used to which is the point I have been making from the start.
Just the development would be expensive but if they also worked on scoping and framing the platform, aligning multiple stakeholders (yes, even just linking outside courses mean you might have to interact with other parts of government or providers) and defining the long term vision and plan, it can get expensive pretty quickly.
Doing anything with the government is a pain. It's even worse than working in a large company. You get paid very late. You have annoying contractual provisions. It makes everything very expensive.
I still only use WhatsApp because it’s a lot better than sms.
They are on par because they now sometimes beat Apple top of the line A-chips on performance be it single core, multicores or GPU and do so within a power budget which allows the phone they ship in to be competitive screen-on time wise.
Apple doesn't have a one generation lead anymore which is a huge change compared to only three years ago.
You are moving the goalposts because the discussion was always about the gap between Apple and its competitors and you have entirely shifted to peak consumption when it was clear the conclusion would not be the one you want/expect.