i_am_jl

I was super confused while I was reading the story posted here yesterday regarding ID theft via credit reports; it's a quality piece but I couldn't stop asking myself "where the hell did 404 Media come from?"

Excited to see where this goes.

I was mistaken, I found a copy of Jobs' letter re:Flash and he does cite the proprietary nature of Flash and Apple's lack of control over the content served on its platform as the most important reason Flash was kept off the iPhone.

https://www.cnet.com/culture/steve-jobs-letter-explaining-ap...

  As hard as it was to believe: Flash had been responsible for every single beachball that week. Yikes.

I used OSX and Flash in the late 2000s so I have no problem believing that.

If I'm not mistaken the solution was to make touching an element trigger the :hover state and the click action unless the :hover state changed the visibility of another element. If the :hover state changed the visibility of another element, then the click action was not triggered until a user tapped again.

This is possible in HTML because it's trivial to determine whether or not a :hover changes display or visibility properties of other elements. As you've supposed, Flash did not afford browsers with that sort of ability.

>The iphone was an HTML device, loudly repudiating the proprietary (and terrible) Flash much less the crappy, mostly stillborn "mobile HTML" attempts.

Skipping Flash wasn't so much an ideological decision as a practical one.

At the time Steve Jobs listed a ton of reasons that they didn't implement Flash. Listed among them were concerns about it not being an open standard, inferiority to H.264, security and performance issues, etc. However, all of these things could've been ignored or overcome.

The principal problem was that a huge proportion of Flash applications, games, and websites used mouseovers as crucial methods of interactions, and Apple simply had no way to allow users to mouseover an element on a touchscreen.

Ensey's sister in law and brother own the Historic Elgin Hotel, one of them currently holds the liquor license for the restaurant, as it used to be their restaurant. The restaurant business is owned by Kari Newell (who purchased it from the Enseys in February) and operates out of the lobby of the Elgin hotel.

Kari Newell is the individual with the DUI that is attempting to get the liquor license and whose information was allegedly obtained illegally, prompting the search.

I'm not sure this is grounds for disqualification. No matter how Ensey decides to proceed against the police I don't think it moves the needle on whether or not Newell gets her liquor license or doesn't, so can't possibly harm or help his family's interests.

EDIT: Maybe the argument that he's biased is that he's inclined to sweep it under the run to keep his family's name out of the paper? That's reasonable.

6 months? Were you told to expect results that quickly? I don't think I saw meaningful results from my subcutaneous allergy shots for 1-2 years.

"This may be the only place to get an honest answer" is an interesting way to title this, considering the piece discusses responses that are exactly what you'd tell an ugly person that asked you "Am I ugly?" if you didn't want to answer earnestly.

C'mon WSJ. Surely there are some ugly people posting there. If you're telling me we can get honest answers there, show your work.

>I have to admit I have been pleasantly surprised by their hardline stance in defending WhatsApp's e2e encryption.

I appreciate their stance as well, but I don't think it should be surprising. There's a real cost to updating WhatsApp to meet those requirements, and I think Meta's belief is that MPs will cave instead of taking the heat for banning WhatsApp.

>It’s not hard to imagine a new type of safety cone that has an explicit sign for autonomous vehicles to stop far far away.

Two things:

The promise of self-driving cars is that they can operate themselves in an environment not specifically designed for them. If that promise is broken, and it's the position of the industry that things like traffic signals, construction, emergency services, road markings etc need to be modified for functionality with self-driving cars then I think public will to accommodate them dries up quickly.

That being said, I can imagine having a lot of fun with a physical token that can remotely stop an autonomous car.

This judge is out for blood.

  HOLTZBLATT: I wanted to confirm that information because I don't want to make an incorrect representation to Your Honor.

  THE COURT: Of course not. We have already been through that.

Redis is 3-clause BSD, BSD does not have a "your license is void if you sell a product that competes with us" clause. Redis does have enterprise products that are licensed in a manner similar to BSL, but Redis itself is not.

MongoDB and Elastic are SSPL. SSPL approaches the problem like the AGPL; it compels licensees who sell a service derived from the software to make available under the SSPL the source of all supporting tooling and software so that a user could spin up their own version of the service.

There's an argument to be made that SSPL is de facto "you can't compete with us" since it would be more challenging to make a competitive SaaS offering if your whole stack is source available. I don't disagree. However, as distasteful as SSPL is, at least it doesn't grant licensing to a product conditionally on the unknowable future product offerings of HashiCorp.

>I think that once you have more than X customers, you don't really need OSS testers and bug-reporters that much – your customers will be the first ones to file a ticket if anything is wrong. And as we saw with CentOS Stream, OSS users are not generally keen to be beta-testers.

In this case the customers they're losing (as well as the devs, testers, reporters, etc) aren't end users but companies who have built software offerings on top of Terraform. That's the class of user principally impacted by the change to the license. OSS users aren't stoked about testing, but developers who build on top of Terraform in order to eat will submit bug reports and PRs all day.

> As usual in OSS-goes-private events these all just sound like “keep building our critical infrastructure tool for free or we will go elsewhere”.

If Terraform was 100% developed by HashiCorp employees that would be fair description. It's more like "We're the only company allowed to make money off of the codebase you contributed to."

> What is hashicorp or any other company in their position to do?

I'd suggest paying developers to write proprietary code. That way they could just sell a product they fully own instead of having to pull this bullshit re-licensing of an open source codebase.

  Why would Hashicorp give the slightest worry to losing thousands and thousands of non-paying customers?

Because it goes hand in hand with losing hundreds of unpaid developers, testers, bug-reporters and evangelists.

  If I wrote an open letter decrying Salesforce for not open sourcing their codebase, nobody would take me seriously. But we expect better from Hashicorp for some reason.

Because the community contributed to the codebase. Salesforce was never open source, Terraform was and took community contributions, that's the reason we have different expectations.

  [Docker] can barely muster a viable business

Docker split their development and enterprise offerings into two companies years ago and both are making money.

  You may make production use of the Licensed Work, provided such use does not include offering the Licensed Work to third parties on a hosted or embedded basis which is competitive with HashiCorp's products.

Read benevolently it's a prohibition from spinning up a service based on HashiCorp's code and undercutting HashiCorp's pricing.

On the other hand, if I build a product with HashiCorp-owned BSL'd code, then HashiCorp releases/acquires a product that competes with mine, then my license is void.

I don't understand how Fanatics is still in business. I've heard good things about Fanatics products literally never. I still remember the Overwatch League merch where they shipped people black jerseys with black lettering. When people complained, since it was white lettering on black material in the photo, they were told they only printed black letters and it couldn't be changed. Wild.

  Imagine a future CTO trying to pick the IaC tools for their company. They see Terraform as an option, but then learn there are multiple forks, licensing questions, and a big battle happening in the community. What do they do?

I truly believe that a CTO who sees Terraform as an option and who isn't scared off by the BSL, but then has all of these other concerns, exists only in fantasy.

Man who runs "Entertainment Storage Alliance" writes white paper claiming that people need lots of storage, so HDDs aren't going anywhere, makes charts to illustrate his feelings, presents no analysis.

Whitepaper store link (I have to assume the description isn't updated for each new issue...?) https://tomcoughlin.com/product/digital-storage-technology-n...

Entertainment Storage Alliance: http://www.entertainmentstorage.org/

I agree that HDDs aren't going anywhere, but this is a nothing article on an apparently nothing whitepaper.

>I've never seen in my entire career things as absurd as someone working 7 other jobs while pretending to work for us.

I'm sure I don't understand. You were paying someone for 40 hours a week and getting ~5. Why was this not apparent to their management? Or, if it was, why was nothing done about it?

The problem that your organization pays someone for 8x the output they're getting is definitely a problem, but if your management's only solution to this problem is to force the entire workforce to commute to an office, I think the bigger problem that should be addressed is that your management sucks.

  It's been a while since I've used Teams+Sharepoint, but I vaguely remember being able to have a Sharepoint workspace per team channel, and then being able to mount those workspaces as a shared/network drive. Stuff that might end up in the workspace is like... shared/uploaded files or something?

This is correct. Every channel is backed by a Sharepoint folder (maybe this is configurable?) that contains stuff like uploaded images, videos, recordings and transcripts of meetings, etc.

Perfect Dark for N64 was another Rare masterpiece.

DD? Softbank just throws gobs of money at companies with founders Masayoshi Son likes.

Softbank's "investment strategy" would've ended the company decades ago if it didn't buy a quarter of Alibaba for $20m, a share that would end up being worth over $100b a few years ago.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not even sure you're less correct than I am. There sure are a lot of assholes around.

I'm just saying that in a story that goes "Things were bad, people helped and I worked hard, now things are good", it's sad getting stuck focusing on the first part.

F1 is a little different than traditional sports in this regard.

While traditional sports (especially team-ball sports) claim that they stimulate the local economy and drive tourism, it has been shown time and time again that this is at best an exaggeration, at worse a complete lie. Most attendees to ball games are locals; in general they don't book lodging locally and they won't patronize nearby restaurants or businesses. They show up for the game, watch the game, maybe buy something or eat at the facilities directly around the stadium, then go home.

F1 is different in every regard. Fans will travel for F1. International ticket sales often make up more than 35% of the tickets sold, even in venues like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. Race events take place over a 3 or 4 day weekend, giving the spectators more time to patronize local businesses. Most will rent lodging.

I'm not saying that they're not disruptive (they are, especially when run somewhere like downtown Las Vegas) but the way they are disruptive, the costs, and the practical upsides of an F1 street race are different than, for instance, bringing the Raiders to town.

That's too bad. My takeaway is that there will always be people, like NalNezumi, that are looking to lift you up.

This strikes me as funny, because Lucas Kovar, the author, is now a software engineer at Google.

>I don't recall what it was like years ago but I'm pretty sure it is worse.

It's absolutely worse today, how much worse depends on how far back you go.

Before 2005 Google didn't put ads in search results, AdWords results were separated off to the right side of the page to make them clearly distinct from organic search results.

I'm sure you're right, but that doesn't change the fact that "logos on Google Maps" =! "partnership"

This isn't a "partnership", it's an option for anyone who has purchased a Local Campaign product on Google Ads.

Are the provisions of STIR not necessary for the traceback rules to be applicable?

My understanding is that without STIR a gateway acting in good faith can't definitively identify malicious traffic, and a gateway acting in bad faith can claim any malicious traffic they forward appeared legitimate.