doesnt_know

> "We were just big enough to play but not big enough to win," Tinter said.

I don't think you're supposed to say this bit out loud are you?

Microsoft are just upset that they aren't the ones with the monopoly.

100% completely agree, the only reason I work in this field is because it's both easier and pays significantly more compared to every other job I've had and could potentially ever get.

The established term is "source available" specifically because it's not open source.

It's end to end encryption, as in, there are ends on each side where it is decrypted, usually for the humans to read. At the ends the records should have been maintained, the regulations aren't incompatible with E2E.

They might appose it, but if it ships in Chrome and starts being actively used they will also implement it, just like CDM.

At the end of the day, users will just see that a website works in Chrome and not in Firefox. Firefox will decide that there is no point in apposing it if there is a real cost in potential market-share.

I've been giving Fleet a try every now and then and am looking forward to it becoming a full-featured stable product.

At the moment there is no extension/module system so it's not really a replacement for the million little jobs I have vscode open for, but I'm a Jetbrains Full Product license holder and use their main IDEs so I will definitely be happy to replace vscode with Fleet when the time comes.

> we could demand and verify good testing and analysis for foundational bits of code, but we don't.

Who would you take these demands to? Most foss software is written and managed by volunteer maintainers, if you start demanding things from them they will rightfully tell you to jog on.

Even when they are not volunteers, they are likely employees of companies that fund this development largely because they require and rely on the software. In which case, they likely have priorities set that are aligned with that company and the needs of other users are low priority at best, but more likely largely irreverent.

> It's amazing how the confident tone lends credibility to all of that made-up nonsense. Almost impossible for anybody without knowledge of the book to believe that those "facts" aren't authorititative and well researched.

To me this is the single biggest problem with the technology, but I guess also the one that is the most "human".

People that have no idea what they are talking about, speaking or publishing in an authoritative tone. The difference is when a human does it you can usually fairly easily look into their published history, education background and other characteristics about the individual to see if they can safely be ignored.

These models remove that ability and are generally "correct enough" most of the time that can make feel like it's more dangerous.

> Various supporters of the US Libertarian party (founded in 1971) argue that they own the meaning of the word "libertarian", that placing it next to "socialism" is a contradiction in terms, and hence that libertarian socialism (described circa 1850) cannot possibly have existed. An edit war and request-for-deletion war ensues.

That doesn't sound very libertarian of them.

There is nothing to think about. All rights reserved except those provided specifically to Y Combinator as outlined by the "User Content Transmitted Through the Site" section of https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/

> Writer/Artist/Dev: “I think publishing this work will improve the world in some way. I’ll put it out there on the public internet for all the world to see for free.”

Surely you must know this is a bullshit argument right? Almost everyone that publishes their work publicly on the internet publishes it under a particular license.

Yes, there are some that decide to publish under the equivalent of the public domain or a CC0 license, but the vast majority of writing, art and code is licensed under specific conditions and for the most part they retain the full rights to the work.

Being on call is baked into your salary? I hope you are getting some serious "fuck you" money if you're effectively on call at all times.

Wonderful illustrations!

Whenever I see someone that is interested in a very specific niche and obviously expends a lot of effort towards it, I'm always in awe. How did they become interested in the topic? Why choose this specific thing? How do they keep their motivation to continue with it?

I've personally never really felt like I've cared enough about anything this much. Because of this, I've always felt like I'm missing something in life. I would love to be passionate about something as much as Junnn11 is about Arthropods.

Technically not completely powered by solar power, since they decided to include remote analytics[1] served by a cdn which is probably hosted in one of those data centers they mention. :)

[1] https://cdn.splitbee.io/sb.js

I don't really think the first part of your comment is true, at least not in my experience. All other stakeholders would prefer someone that updates their tickets and communicates what they are doing effectively, even if they produce absolute garbage, bug ridden software.

I've personally only ever seen someone removed from a team for having poor technical skills once and it was under pretty extreme circumstances. While I've seen many good (from a technical perspective) developers removed because they thought they were somehow above doing the everyday "busy work" like ticket management.

Unless you work alone, then refusing to do non-technical work is just saying you're going to let the rest of the team do it. You're much more likely to be removed or have your contract ended if the team doesn't want to work with you.

As someone who writes (not Unity) C# for a living, what is going on here? Does Unity maintain it's own, non-standard version of C# and it changed the behavior of null?

> Any other products or services that directly infringe or facilitate infringement upon the trademark, patent, copyright, trade secrets, proprietary or privacy rights of any third party

Going after those seedbox providers. :) Can also use this same rule to shut down processing of any type of site that provides hosting of user content.

If a "handful" of external bad actors can completely destroy your financial institute then maybe it's time to consider how these systems are built.

If you start using an extendible tool like Emacs for something and put in the effort to learn it's key bindings, how it works, it's language if it has one etc it becomes increasingly annoying and a chore to use other software.

You either start trying to cram every possible task into that tool or try to find other software that was developed specifically for users of that tool (eg: Nyxt and Qutebrowser).

It feels like a very natural thing to do at the time even if it sometimes results in subpar results like what you're describing. I've personally declared "Emacs bankruptcy" multiple times and even go through periods of completely changing workflows if I get annoyed enough.

> This is an extinction level event for startups and will set startups and innovation back by 10 years or more.

I didn't know there was a YC backed startup with an app that lets you directly inhale your own gas. I'm sure that one isn't at any risk of extinction.

I've been a happy user since December, but I knew this change would eventually come. On the existing $10 USD a month plan I've been scraping under the "break even" usage point and I've only used it on my personal devices/outside of work.

Still using google for my day job since I figure it would tip me way over the point where it would be sustainable. Sort of justified it to myself that it's technically "my employers" privacy since I'm googling things related to developing their product and nothing to do with me personally.

In saying that I thought/hoped they would put in a huge drive to try and minimize the cost of search over time, not just rely on bumping up end user pricing. I don't think I can justify the price of the unlimited plan, which is what I would need if I actually used it on all my devices. That would be $40 NZD a month! For context that's more then I pay for Netflix, Disney+ and Crunchyroll combined.

I was more curious about what happens to the previous owners handle when a domain switches hand. Is the old handle force reset to something else? What if they haven't logged in to change it but the new owner of the domain is setting up that handle?

Curious how it would handle domain ownership changes.

Obviously the account would still have standard credentials but once the new domain owner proves ownership does the old handle get reverted to something else so the handle can be used by the new owner or is that account name forever squatted?

What about the other side of this "relationship"? You'd have to really hate yourself to opt-in to become the drop-in replacement for a bot for someone. Who in their right mind would sign up for that?

Even assuming someone had such crushing low self-esteem to agree to be put in that situation what are the chances a genuine, healthy relationship can form out of such an arrangement?

It clearly states it's a project from 2016, that's 6 years ago. The IP test video was also uploaded in 2016. People are allowed to keep their own past projects up on their personal websites.

They are being integrated into the most widely used information retrieval systems (search engines). It's not enough that they are "smarter then most people", they have to always be correct when the question asked of them has a definitive answer otherwise they are just another dangerous avenue for misinformation.

Yes, not all questions have definitive answers, which is fine, then you can argue that they are better then going to the smartest human you know and that might be enough. Although I personally would still disagree with this argument, since I think it's better that the answer provided is "I don't know".

This one of the primary ideas in "So Good They Can't Ignore You"[1]. In your 30's there is a decent chance you've spent a bunch of time building career capital, so you're now in a position to cash that in.

Highly recommend reading the book.

[1] So Good They Can't Ignore You: Why Skills Trump Passion in the Quest for Work You Love, Cal Newport, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13525945-so-good-they-ca...

It doesn't really matter if in practise the source is released, that's just one possible (ideal) outcome. As long as damage is done to those that abuse the license, that's ultimately what matters as a disincentive to prevent further/on-going abuse.

> A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That's a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits.

From your own quote. This is ultimately good enough. You either get the source or the proprietary software is knee-capped/no longer allowed to be distributed. From a Free Software perspective that's a win.

> This approach is what drives corporations to adopt zero-GPL policies.

Good. It's literally the point of choosing the GPL that organisations producing proprietary software can't benefit and mix in GPL licensed work without publishing the source.

How so? You should still be doing those things with cloud deployment anyway. The alternative is (the pretty terribly named) "click ops" where devops folks have to fiddle with some cloud UI settings to make production changes or go through wizards to attempt to replicate an environment.

If you are doing your environment config as code it ultimately shouldn't matter if your target is a dedicated server, a vm or some cloud specific setup configured via an api.