63 karma · joined October 24, 2017
How is the payment distributed proportionally to each contributor?
Or is it the case that the lead maintainer can decide to receive funds from tide lift without paying the contributors.
Or is it the case he did but its not possible to communicate that to YouTube?
Very different problems, one is failure to understand copyright the other is YouTube having a poor user experience.
It would appear it stopped at probably the same time they started teaching Java. Which is why some developers like my self are a bit amused by the younger generation be amazed by this 'new' thing.
Interested in others experience on this, was taught Pop-11, Miranda around 1996 at Uni.
However I would argue hiring a 'suit' who was CTO for a reputable knowledge based AI company 8 years ago, and since been in a strategic position during Googles recent progress is more valuable to Apple at this time than a well published researcher.
If so, are you really interested in ML or do you just think its the hot bandwagon of the moment which you want to jump on to get ahead? If that is the case, I'd suggest that perhaps that is a bit obvious and to identify something else that is less hyped and mainstream. Perhaps something which you can get ahead of the crowd on and ideally, have genuine interest in.
If I do something I'd rather get paid or not at all and I've chosen that, rather than cap out looking for tips.
I feel that saying ohh you should never need to write your own pointer chain (linked list, trees etc) is a bit too sweeping and doesn't match my experience.
"not particularly relevant to most Rust programmers" begs the question is their less of an overlap from C programmers and Rust programmers than is being generally touted?
1. The false disintermediation; when really they want to put themselves as the intermediary
2. This is so much better than what exists, we just need everyone to adopt it at once, in order to get the network effect that makes adopting it in the first place worthwhile.
3. We just need to solve this one problem to unlock the potential (insert HARD economic problem, that world has been failing to solve for last 30 years).
4. Just being bunch of nonsense, but who cares, with so much blind speculation we might come our rich as long as we scarper before the bubble bursts.
5. We just need these 3 miracles for success
6. Our solution is basically just the same as what exists, however we are really excited because we will implement it with blockchain!
Sounds like I hate the tech, I don't, just hate the bullshiters.
How would I bolt on an inference engine to this if none is offered, i.e. to provide OWL:RL?
If the US law changes, then the w3c standard still stands, I don't think anyone involved in W3C thinks preventing security researchers doing their job is a sensible thing.
EFF are picking a fight with the wrong people, and producing propaganda to support that fight, making themselves less credible to those who actually understand the details.
I know 'Fake News' is a popular thing in the US, but I don't think its a sensible tactic in the tech community.
Quite simply EFF had a weaker argument, even though there is a lot of sympathy for their cause from representatives in W3C, who also think US law is an arse, its simply not the correct forum for the battle.
You never fully owned that CD, you owned the physical object, but not the content, you only had permission to play it under certain conditions.
This is very much my view also.
So it was this kind of hyperbole that largely did EFF a disservice in my opinion. The W3C is composed of very experienced people who can see through straw man arguments and unsubstantiated facts.
The main argument from w3c was that they deal with technical specifications, not US laws.
It now seems that the EFF are starting to get this, and looking to tackle the actual issues.
The EFF acted poorly through out this thing scenario.