fabianhjr

Well, interesting to know Children of Men (2006) is a non-measure-zero possibility.

If Microsoft updates the model daily then you could easily get a copy of someone elses solution by the next day.

Yes, GEO Coop keeps a fact-sheet: https://geo.coop/story/fact-sheet

With most citations being from: https://geo.coop/story/benefits-and-impacts-cooperatives

For example:

> Since most cooperatives are owned and controlled by local residents, it is more likely to promote community growth than an investor-oriented firm. Since cooperative business objectives are needs oriented, cooperatives are more likely to stay in the community (Zeuli, Freshwater et al 2003).

Invest in tech worker cooperatives instead of for-profit corporations; it seems like more of the same Silicon Valley VC money pumping otherwise. :|

Also ignoring any sort of risk analysis; its hilarious that they were warned by risk professionals and decided to proceed anyways.

Risk assessments and decision rules like Minimax exist. (Saving up energy/time/resources is a specific possible action of many and might or might not be the optimal action)

The gateways would similarly not be thrilled about it.

I would add a redirect to the makers of the browsers in question (so that the leechers got to deal with the traffic themselves; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_linking)

Public Transit (from local buses to inter-city trains) should be high quality and frequent.

That is reality in a lot of the world including Europe, China, and South America.

I agree with the sentiment of not generally needing to have a car and fortunately that is the case in most of the world (except the USA)

I had a similar issue at the beginning of the year; some g. skill ddr4-3200 (with xmp) started bit-flipping on me and causing crashes.

Sure enough on memtest64 those issues were clearly diagnosed.

Haven't changed to ECC hardware, disabling xmp to ddr4-2333 helped with stability.

That's more on the project management side. (Initiating a project / gathering requirements)

Already tagged on git: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...

I agree that it is normally wise to keep in mind the power disparity and interconnection between individuals and corporations. (And that not because something is legal you will have a good time)

> but for most devs who just want a job, making huge waves on exit is pretty dangerous

Yeah, it is easier (both in effort and in future prospects) to keep a low profile. Though I was focusing on legality/acceptability of poaching/leaving as a group.

> As in "you agree not to initiate poaching up until 12 months after leaving the company".

Where I live that can be legal with the following caveat (same for non-compete):

- They have to pay you (a consideration) when signing such agreement

- It must be for a definite period of time. (Unsure about how much time is legal though)

- The only penalty for breach would be to return the consideration.

Where I live most non-competes/non-poaching agreements would be unenforceable since they don't meet the previous criteria. (Unenforceable clauses are normally refereed to as illegal though)

> It's illegal to poach people (make them work for your company)

In most of the world (and where I live) it isn't, on the contrary having anti-poaching policies is illegal and resulted in a huge anti-competitive/wage-supression lawsuit:

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/silicon-valleys-...

https://www.classaction.org/blog/silicon-valley-antipoaching...

What's even more egregious is that a group of people leaving to start something better together is part of how silicon valley got started:

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Traitorous_eight

> 3) those people that _willingly_ took those jobs are being taken advantage of

There is of course no threat of homelessness or starvation and those that were unemployed could have "chosen" to remain unemployed rather than taking those gig employment offers.

Also as per your example, clearly everyone that started working at Uber knew they had to take into account costs such as the replacement cost of their vehicle, higher maintenance cost due to a huge increase on average kilometers driven per month, higher insurance costs, cleaning and repair cost to seats due to higher usage, etc.

If people could choose to not work and not starve/lose their home I would somewhat agree most of those picking up employment as pauperized gig workers would do so willingly.

> they're using what's called a metaphor

It isn't a metaphor, it is, in the words of Zizek, pure ideology.

Accountable to employees and not "the invisible hand of the market" nor shareholders.

> The entire point of the internet is to be uncensorable

That isn't the point, the internet protocol is designed as a distributed networking system that was adopted by corporations; if you want censorship resistance or privacy that isn't part of that specific protocol. (For example check alternatives such a CJDNS, GNUnet, Yggdrasil, etc; or application-layer protocols such as I2P/IPFS/TOR)

Additionally the Internet Protocol is not resistant to intermediation. (Or in the words of the P2P Foundiation: it is not counter-anti-desintermediation: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediatio...)

> The idea of disintermediation was central to the emancipatory visions of the Internet, yet the landscape today is more mediated than ever before. If we are to understand the consequences of an increasingly centralized Internet, we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration. Centralization is required to capture profit. Disintermediating platforms were ultimately reintermediated by way of capitalist investors dictating that communications systems be designed to capture profit.

> That is contingent on China able to access other global markets for its own GPUs/chips

https://howmuch.net/articles/trade-timelapse-usa-china

Most of the world trades more with China than with the USA, if it is contingent on that then not only does China have access they are most often the biggest trading partner.

> it will become more like cold wars, where market access will become limited to allies only.

Yes, it seems like the USA has admitted marketplace defeat and will proceed to isolate themselves as much as possible.

12nm, about 5 years behind; it would be a very bad deal against current AMD Radeon RX offerings though the Chinese Economic Planning body would very likely throw a lot of support to secure domestic IP and production capacity.

Realistically speaking the datacenters / enterprise would have to buy the next best thing in the short term, though you are right in that China (being a planned economy) will take this as economic warfare, designate GPUs as strategic resource and invest in creating domestic production capacity.

If high speed trains are anything to go by (China sends regards to the California High Speed Rail Project) then the US will be left behind by the end of the decade.

So AMD Radeon RX is about to gain an edge on enterprise / datacenter market in China.

> Uh, no? This is managed policy, and this is a 100% good way of letting the user know that someone else has control of their settings

So Google's defaults are "un-managed" and imply no control over users' settings?

Why shouldn't the Google built Chrome binaries display the same warning and a binary from a specific linux distro should?

It should be clearly stated as an ad though, google wouldn't get away with not marking the top 2 rows of the result page as advertisement because "they disclosed so on the FAQ"

Also wondering to what extend co-pilot has this particular code embedded.

I have tried several (like https://hledger.org/ ) but would prefer some REA/ValueFlows accounting software.

It would be simpler to decentralize and implement webs of trust[1] (that locality would also help community-building / social cohesion).

Secure Scuttlebutt[1] doesn't have a lack of moderation / spam issue and it is completely decentralized and without monetary fees nor proof-of work. Why can't centralized services do better?

[1]: https://ssbc.github.io/scuttlebutt-protocol-guide/#follow-gr...

You don't get it, Facebook wasn't just a CRUD from the start and had some niche programming language needs. /s

:P

And now also BeiDou, QZSS, and IRNSS-NAVIC.

There is an anachronism were the following circumstances collide:

- lending is limited to the original bought copies (a library cannot create more copies of a book for further lending)

- digital lending requires sending the data to another device creating a copy

- digital lending has near-zero marginal cost (specially at scale)

- digital borrowing has near-zero marginal cost (no library membership, single click borrowing for some minutes or some hours with single click return)

IMHO I think Archive is legally in the right and it is only due to the previous circumstances, Archive.org collaborating with _a lot_ of libraries, and the tension between the older/traditional socialist/communal lending practice vs newer/contemporary private property laws that allows this conflict to emerge.