orra

> That's another company that feels like they don't want to be an OSS company after all

TBH that's nothing new for Cockroach. Even back when they were open core, the core was so restricted it didn't include backup & restore.

I think that may have changed, but only when they changed the license of the core to BSL, that is making the core non open source for three years.

The fair thing to do would be to bring proceedings against him the New Zealand. Extraditing him to the U.S. isn't accountability: it's a flex.

> Note that Apple and Google made a big deal about how they are extending their upgrade timelines, without mentioning that they actually have to

This is unsurprising, but deceptive and borderline illegal. “Presenting rights given to consumers in law as a distinctive feature of the trader's offer” is an Unfair Commercial Practice.

Is the terminology slightly off? AIUI TypeScript has type unions.

But this looks like a discriminated union which I'd recognise from F# or Haskell. The distinction I'd draw is that for a DU there are named case constructors. Yes?

Cool that you open sourced this. As you say there's nothing open quite like this.

Not using MJML as a design decision. Foes that simplify deployment a lot, or just keep things lighter? In turn, do you have to strangle a lot of compatibility issues yourself? etc. Thanks.

Ramification implies adverse unwarranted complexity. There are no ramifications, just a few straightforward requirements.

You're not really describing that much effort in the scheme of things: make a filing and notify several parties. Annual accounts are a far bigger burden, and they have to be done.

A domain rewrite permanent redirect is pretty straightforward.

I appreciate your suggestion of the recursive acronym, ASF Software Foundation.

It's cheaper to change the name and logo in one go, than to change the logo; then later change the name and logo.

I cannot agree they want to change the name, otherwise they would be.

There's no legal ramification of changing their name. Companies change their names every so often; it doesn't erase their legal rights or obligations.

Technical? Not sure what huge problems they are, but as a Software Foundation you'd think they'd be well placed to deal with the issues.

Financial? That may be true, but it costs less if you do it as part of the one branding refresh.

> And yes, IANAL.

Politely, you're presumably not a lawyer of European law.

> Then, in paragraph 38 [. . .] In paragraph 39

They're called Recitals, and I'm not sure why you're so focused on them. Recitals help clarify purpose but are not legally binding[1].

> These exceptions then are codified in Article 11, which uses 'shall', not 'must'

This proves the opposite of the point you're making. Shall denotes an obligation[2].

> which gives us another reason when this does not apply - for devices which need to have power constantly, e.g. for the integrity of data collection. Which you could easily argue that smartphones fall under.

Come on. That's not a good faith interpretation of the exception.

[1] https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-009-6368?transi...

[2] https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/c45f5b70-2d0e... paragraph 10.27

Required for who? It's fine that you need it. But I think you overestimate the number of people who simultaneously go to pool parties, jump in with their jacket on, and don't have accidental damage insurance.

True, although it's unusual to see it for copyright not patents.

That said, the far bigger issue is the end of the same clause 2.1:

> NVIDIA may update this Agreement to comply with legal and regulatory requirements at any time and You agree to either comply with any updated license or cease Your copying, use, and distribution of the Model and any Derivative Model

Often there's a long click menu in your SMS app to do it.

But all that really does is copy the body into a new SMS. There's no metadata to indicate it's forwarded, as you suspect.

This means texting 7726 is a two step process. First you send the body. You immediately get a response asking for the phone number of the spam sender, so then you sent that.

> If artificial sound has a big impact we should have legislation around it ASAP, no?

The EU (and UK) have required this from late 2020, IIRC.

However it only applies to new cars. I don't think there's a requirement to retrofit old EVs.

Interesting! However the company which runs the official gazetteer has advice, and the reasoning is nonsense:

>GeoPlace does not advise that councils include or remove punctuation in official naming or on the street name plate. Street naming and numbering is a council policy decision.

>However, the Data Entry Conventions documentation does state that GeoPlace would prefer not receive data (including street names) with punctuation.

>This is for two main reasons:

> machine readability – punctuation can be misinterpreted by computers

> usability – for example, if loaded into say an emergency service command and control system and a caller provides a street name, the search will be faster if the search is entered and returned without punctuation.

https://www.geoplace.co.uk/street-naming-and-numbering/guida...

Observables are painful, especially when they should just be available Promises.

But Signals? That's just what everybody is converging on, hence making Angular no worse and no better than the competition in that regard.

No, I don't think they do non-targetted advertising. Also this case was about the fake engineered consent for targeted advertising.

Non targeted advertising, limited targeted advertising underpinned by genuine consent, paid features. All of these are lawful business models.

I retract the claim of proprietary. I misunderstood some of the licence wording. The license appears to be well accepted as a permissive open source license. https://spdx.org/licenses/AML.html

I presume they're releasing it because they traibed it using the just-announced CoreNet library.

However, the model is proprietary. I'm tired of the open washing.

Mixture of Experts. A popular example is Mixtral.

> Nor is it great for the yet-to-mature craft that high salaries invited a very large pool of primarly-compensation-motivated people who end up diluting the ability for primarily-craft-motivated people to find and coordinate with each other in pursuit of higher quality work and more robust practices.

It's great to enjoy programming, and to enjoy your job. But we live under capitalism. We can't fault people for just working a job.

Pushing for lower salaries won't help anybody.

Sure, in theory. But if you move so fast that you already are running the base 8x22B model from last week, you can easily fix this.

I've long thought that if you want reproducibility and reliability, you need to pin your deps.

So, IMO, the change is very much worth it to reduce confusion going forward.

> Mistral just released the most powerful open weight model in the history of humanity.

Well, yeah, it's very welcome, but 'history of humanity' is hyperbole given ChatGPT isn't even two years old.

> How did they weaken their commitment to open weights?

Before https://web.archive.org/web/20240225001133/https://mistral.a... versus after https://web.archive.org/web/20240227025408/https://mistral.a... the Microsoft partnership announcement:

> Committing to open models.

to

> That is why we started our journey by releasing the world’s most capable open-weights models

There were similar changes on their about the Company page.

Is this release a pleasant surprise? Mistral weakened their commitment to open source when they partnered with Microsoft.

It's nice they're using some of the money from their commercial and proprietary models, to improve the state of the art for open source (open weights) models.

Just to add to this answer, here's [1] how to do .NET with AOT compilation, without needing Blazor.

[1] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/use-net-7-from-any-jav...

Such an app needs to download a megabyte of runtime. This isn't tiny. Yet, for corporate apps I think it's okay? Apps start reasonably quickly, although not instantly, maybe 2 seconds.

> and one of those copies can end up with uninitialized junk, so that's wrong.

To be fair to the Debian patch, reading from uninitialized junk doesn't sprinkle randomness into the desired buffer: it invokes undefined behaviour. The Debian patch was lawful!

At the time, it felt like Debian got a lot of flack for the bug, but there's the collaboration attempt you mention above.

Plus, the upstream OpenSSL code was invoking undefined behaviour. Hence the compiler could have validly made the exact same transformation as the Debian maintainer. At the time this felt academic: surely compilers can't be that mean! Since then I think undefined behaviour is better understood as a thing to avoid entirely.

Then, eight years later, Heartbleed was discovered. And we suddenly all realised how badly maintained OpenSSL was. In their defence, it was pretty much a volunteer job. Thankfully, subsequent funding has improved the situation.