ddevault

The idea of an individual carbon footprint was invented by oil companies to shift responsibility for climate change from corporations (the cause) to consumers (the victims). Your personal responsibility to address climate change begins and ends at the voting booth (direct action is also good if you really want to make a personal impact). Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

They aren't false.

Alpine is small, stable, and built by professionals with a purpose in mind. I would not consider running anything else in production, and I run it on all of my devices -- servers, workstations, laptops, phone, SoCs, even my TV runs Alpine. It's an excellent distro and one of the few that I feel can fit entirely in my head.

At the only job I've had where Bazel was in use, we had a team of 4-5 engineers dedicated to maintaining Bazel for a larger team of about 25.

Bazel is a nightmare. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

It will, if anything, cull the bottom performers. It's essentially an incremental improvement on a script which searches stack overflow for a query and copy/pastes the first result into your program. Having tried it on more interesting systems-level work it does little to nothing to augment productivity.

AI is not in and of itself an existential threat, and is unlikely to be one within our lifetimes. The singularity, in this sense, is not near, and state-of-the-art machine learning does not resemble general intelligence.

Focusing on the misuse of this tool by people is the most prudent worry to address.

"I do not have an email address" is not a reasonable state of being. The way you can resolve this is via email, and you should obtain one.

The exact rate limit, to my understanding, is tuned by the moderators. So one of them presumably thought you were making some inflammatory comments and made a conscious choice to slow you down. Reach out to hn@ycombinator.com to find out more and make an appeal.

This website's tracking consent pop-up is unlawful: unticking each spyware service one at a time rather than a one-click opt-out is not permitted by the GDPR.

Well, I said upfront that the level of comments here is fine. Just offering a perspective on how it could still be good code with less. In general I think it's fine to expect a reading of the code to be paired with a reading of the documentation/specification; in the absence of such a resource for the GameBoy the comments here are well-justified. I would definitely add more constants, though, and I would anticipate that a second implementation which references this would start by re-defining all of the constants in its own code.

From the perspective of someone who generally writes far fewer comments than this, I find that this code has a number of comments which is well-justified due to the complexity of the subject, poor availability of external documentation describing the interface it implements, and the nature of the code. However, the code can be written in a manner which is still readable with fewer comments.

Here's a sample from the file:

    // For sprites, color 0 is transparency so don't draw anything.
    if color == 0 {
        continue;
    }

This comment is probably not necessary: it would be equally clear if it were written as something like the following:

    if color == SPRITE_COLOR_TRANSPARENT {
        continue;
    }

A few lines up is another comment:

    // Is this specific pixel not on the screen? We already check that x_pos is not off
    // the left side earlier, so only need to check that it's not off the right side.
    if x_pos + p >= 160 {
        continue;
    }

If the code were written with a constant, then it would only need to clarify why we don't check the left side here (the only non-obvious thing about the code), so:

    // Note: bounds testing on the left side is handled earlier
    if x_pos + p >= SCREEN_WIDTH {
        continue;
    }

One last example:

    // We want to iterate through 160 pixels to draw one scanline.
    for col in 0..160u8 {

No comment, similar level of readability:

    for col in ppu.iterscanlines() {

I'm very excited about the Digital Markets Act. Some things that excite me which are definitely in scope:

- Interopability between walled gardens like messenger apps

- Side-loading software on your devices

I'm also hoping that we see this specifically lead to the following:

- Installing your own operating system on any electronic device

- Third-party video games running on proprietary consoles without the vendor's approval

Naturally they have reinvented the proprietary wheel instead of implementing PGP, so that their domesticated users are nicely corralled in their walled garden.

FWIW I've been in NL for a little under 2 years and got a fresh Dutch number when I arrived, and I have received zero spam calls. Even after registering my business with the KVK and entering my number into the public record -- when I did that in the states it generated a lot of spam. To be fair, I am reluctant to give out my number to businesses, so perhaps that has saved me from the typical experience.

This is a pretty unusual situation, where you presumably live in the sticks and commute to the city, or vice versa? In the cities, particularly Amsterdam, cars are not the favored option. In Amsterdam 38% of travel is by bike, Zwolle is 46%. Across the whole country the averages break down at 45% by car, 36% by bike, and 11% by transit. That is to say, a very slight majority prefers modes other than a car across the country as a whole, and within cities the difference is presumably more significant. These figures, even in their most conservative interpretation, are wildly different from the United States, where travel by bike is a rounding error and the public transit options are abysmal.

I am in a position to hire and fire people in this market, albeit at a much smaller scale. We only hire those that we can afford to keep, even based on our most conservative financial models, because it's the right thing to do.

When companies like GitLab hire you, they lie about their principles and values. It's a polite lie that obfuscates their true goal, which is to generate profits for only a small fraction of the people to whom they are accountable, at the expense of the remainder.

This is cowardly, and morally wrong. I hope that those who were affected by this lie will find greener pastures at companies which live up to their stated goals and principles, who work in the service of what's right over what's profitable.

This is not okay. The only ethical way to do telemetry is opt-in. If not enough people are opting in, you need to incentivize them to -- most simply by just paying them for their data. After all, telemetry is "valuable", isn't it? But if you can't figure out how to convince people to opt-in, then tough luck, sucks to be you.

Opt-in or GTFO, Google. I'll be patching this out of the Alpine package for Go the day it ships.

Wow, I don't think anyone who commented here actually read anything in the paper. I strongly agree that Mozilla makes constant mis-steps and that the scope of web browsers is hugely problematic, but to dismiss anything they say outright over those concerns is very immature of the readers commenting here. Start from page 38 if you want to quickly get an idea of what Mozilla is complaining about here -- and they're goddamn right to complain about this.

I haven't seen such a poor discussion on HN in a long time.

Nice how the goal for artificial general AI (which is literally defined as a sentient artificial being) is to commoditize it and enslave it to capitalism.

Other comments addressed your (ridiculous) argument so that I don't have to, I encourage you to read them instead.

Propaganda and PR are the same thing. The term "public relations" was invented in the wake of public sentiment turning negative regarding "propaganda" in the wake of the second world war. Prior to that PR was just called propaganda, and did not have a generally negative connotation.

The problem is that you cannot ascertain with certainty that someone is, in fact, a murderer. Countries with the death penalty will always execute innocent people. Roughly 5% of convicted persons are estimated to be innocent, and an execution makes the possibility of appeal or exoneration moot. At least 190 people in the United States have been sentenced to death and were later found to be innocent.

The death penalty is abhorrent and indefensible, and religious freedom and the right to free expression are both included in the universal declaration of human rights, to which Pakistan is a signatory.

This is indeed the main difference. The reason that agreed that the plan was suitable was the combination of the ongoing work on incorporating -reuse with the Go module mirror and the Go teams decision to accept responsibility for the traffic and to exercise their discretion in moderating it for each affected third-party without requiring them to explicitly reach out to Google to opt out. Russ also graciously elaborated on the engineering thought-process going on within the Go team the implications of disabling the refresh on third-parties, which had not been done prior to our communications in the past couple of weeks.

There's still work to be done, but so long as work is moving forward and the Go team is communicative and pro-active about addressing the problem, then our concerns were satisfied, and I'm glad that we were able to address the issue.

> Because they like community contributions to their stuff, so "open source" it for that, but don't want their competitors benefiting from the initial work they did. Which I understand.

The distinction between competitors and community contributions is false. Why should the publishers be entitled to exclusive monetization of the contributions of their community, and why should their community be denied the right to monetize a product they contributed to? The ability to share the wealth is why the open source movement works.

This approach stems from a position wherein the publishers view themselves as separate and privileged from their community, which is valid if you are the only entity investing in the software, but unjust if the community is an active participant in the software's development.

The mainstream view on OSS is often good for the original publisher, in that an organization which monetizes their software then has access to more resources with which to contribute back to the software -- particularly in the presence of a copyleft license to enforce this behavior. The original publisher is then able to benefit from a larger and more consistent workforce developing the project with them.

Language /does/ evolve. However, it's still dishonest to use an established term in a manner contrary to the broadly understood definition. Furthermore, the rationale for an unorthodox definition of open source is generally forwarded by those with a financial interest in their unorthodox definition, and in so doing they are asking others to work against their own interests by surrendering the mutually agreed upon rights associated with the term.

The orthodox view on open source is a useful and broadly understood shorthand for a certain enumeration of rights, the withholding of those rights disproportionately serves a certain group of interests at the expense of others, and disregarding these problems and using the terminology incorrectly in spite of them is willfully dishonest.

Agreed. It's important to use the correct terminology. This does not qualify as open source and should be described as source available instead (or should switch to a license which is open source). I've written about this subject in detail here if you're curious about why this is important:

https://drewdevault.com/2022/03/01/Open-source-is-defined-by...

Happy to answer any more specific questions here on HN.

I hate the fact that "developer relations" is so cargo culted that someone calls it DevRel unironically now.

In addition to the risk of sudden death, even on the first use, they cause permanent brain damage with each use and regular use will reduce you to a gibbering shell of yourself from which you cannot recover -- and then you'll probably die. Recreational use is incredibly dangerous and this is one category that you should probably put into the "never use" group. Much worse than any common recreational drugs, including the ones usually demonized by society such as heroin.

Having Google on your resume is not a good thing depending on who's reading it. Googlers generally need to be extensively re-trained on reality outside of companies that cargo-cult Google's practices, and I'll have some questions about the moral compass of anyone who shows up with Google on the resume.