It's a play on the old Uncle Sam "I want YOU" recruiting posters.
694 karma · joined August 19, 2016
But whose problem is that? systemd chose to link against liblzma, not the other way around. I doubt the xz maintainer(s) make money off of the project, and I'm assuming it's a spare-time/side-project type thing. Why should the fact that the library is included in every distro and is a dependency of systemd affect the xz maintainers' obligations? The leader of systemd has been variously employed by RedHat and Microsoft... if they're choosing to pull in an external dependency for systemd and then making money off of selling their Linux distros/cloud services, it would seem they're the ones that could afford to take on the burden of reviewing everything with a fine-toothed comb, not the xz maintaners.
The title suggests that different VPNs are fastest in different measures/tests, so no single VPN is clearly "fastest" in aggregate.
Where Tesla makes money is when people with those cars go to charge at the Tesla superchargers.
On the other hand, putting crossbars on their I would make it much more visually similar to their 1 glyph. Mixing I and 1 (again, in waypoint names, for example), is much more likely and the strong visual difference in I and 1 by not having crossbars on the I seems like a better choice for the stated goals/applications of this font. ("...improve the display of information on the cockpit screens, in particular in terms of legibility and comfort of reading, and to optimize the overall homogeneity of the cockpit")
And I wonder if there's a 0-with-a-slash in the downloadable version of the font, enabled with an OpenType stylistic set number or feature or something, or if that zero-with-a-slash is just something custom the Airbus folks do internally.
This ruling says that providing that XYZ 123 standard online for non-commercial purposes is fair use if that standard is incorporated into the law.
Since you asked specifically about my residence to the first stop, which is obviously the portion of driving I perform more than anything else, I would say there's something almost... "Pavlovian" about it, in that the route and actions to get from my house to the first intersection are "burned in" to my brain, but not at all in a way I'd describe as being able to "visualize" it versus "describe it verbally," which is what I have to do in my mind if asked about it.
Whether it's significant or not (related to aphantasia), I have a horrible sense of direction, get lost while driving incredibly easily, and am entirely reliant on step-by-step directions to get somewhere (now that GPS in the car is a thing it's not too terrifying to try to drive somewhere I've never driven before, but I've been driving since before GPS was a thing available in cars and getting to new places was not fun back then!)
Personally, I don't find the test particularly enlightening... it's a test to assess how vivid your mental visualizations are, but it does so by just asking how vivid your mental visualizations are. I can't tell how it's any different from an IQ test that just asks you "what do you think your IQ is?"
But I also believe I have aphantasia, so it's blindingly (hah...pun not intended) obvious to me that I don't visualize anything mentally. Any result of the test was a forgone conclusion for me. Maybe if you do visualize things to some degree it's helpful to tease out various aspects of the vividness of your visualizations. I don't know, it's not something I can relate to.
hahahaha... yeah, I 100% relate to the feeling. When I learned about aphantasia as an adult, so much of what I've heard people say throughout my life suddenly made so much more sense from the perspective of, "oh, wow, people really mean something so different than what I experience when they say that."
> Or that reading a book means literally seeing the action.
Yeah. People say things like "I don't like the movie because it's not what I pictured in my mind" or "the character doesn't look like what I pictured while reading the book." I always assumed they just meant what I would mean if I said something like that... based on the literal description on the page, the character in the movie doesn't match the described hair color, height, etc. But no... I have more recently realized they mean they literally have an almost photographic picture in their mind of the character as they imagine it when they are reading the book. So wild.
As for the VVIQ test, there was never any doubt in my mind -- I'm 1's across all questions without hesitation.
But yeah, that first night I really started looking into it a few years ago... wild. But so much all of a sudden made sense.
> Also, it is near impossible to report objectively about your inner processes in a useful way.
I agree that discussing our mental/inner processes is difficult due to a lack of a common frame of reference on which to base descriptions. (I'm reminded of McCoy and Spock's conversation in Star Trek IV... "Are you telling me I'd have to die to discuss your experience of death with you?")
I (approx. 40 years old) became aware of the concept of aphantasia about three years ago. I immediately identified with it... or rather, I immediately found it mind-boggling that other people claim to experience anything close to "seeing" something by closing their eyes and thinking about it. That's such a foreign concept to me I had always assumed people's descriptions of visualizing things in their mind, daydreaming, etc were extremely metaphorical, not describing a process that is anything like "seeing" something.
I have talked to many friends at length about how they describe their "mind's eye" after realizing I was probably different. And even how it extends, in the case of some of my friends with particularly visual mind's eyes, to the "mind's ears" and "mind's nose" in music and scent recall.
Based on my friends' descriptions to me of how they try to describe how they experience mental visualization, it's clear the capability is a spectrum... some describe it as blurry gray image of what they're thinking about, some describe it as being a picture as real as a photograph that they can literally see and smell.
I agree with you that it's hard to tell how reliable the descriptions are relative to each other, but I can tell you this: hearing all of themselves describe it, even down at the "it's just a blurry gray 'image' in my mind" end of the spectrum, none of them sounded familiar to me or like any kind of "visualization" I've ever experienced while awake (specifically: none at all). If it were simply a matter of being able to accurately report objectively on our inner processes in a useful way, I feel like there wouldn't be such a clear divide between the way a minority of people (allegedly with aphantasia) describe it and the way the majority of people describe it. Whether it's aphantasia or not, it's clear to me at this point that there is definitely a "group A" and "group B" in terms of how people describe their "mind's eye" when asked.
Related, I also have a friend who says she has no internal monologue, another phenomenon I've read about. She thinks entirely visually. Not having an inner monologue is such an incomprehensible concept to me; literally the only way I can think is with my inner monologue.
Brains are weird.
Often when historical stuff like this is released for "non-commercial use", they're not just talking about not using the code itself in your own non-open-source product, but they mean "you can't run your business on this software."
The GPL certainly doesn't stop a commercial entity from downloading and using a GPL-licensed accounting package such a GnuCash to keep track of their company finances.
(This is the same behavior as the append built-in function today, for example. These things in Go are _not_ reserved keywords, they are simply global functions that can be overridden at other scopes.)
>What does that mean exactly? Hopefully not that everybody else can look at my "throwaway" inbox.
It means exactly that. This is in the spirit of the old free version of Mailinator. Use a randomly generated string as the local part of the address to prevent others from guessing and looking that that inbox.
However -- and perhaps to your point -- HTTP/2 still specifies them as case-insensitive, but requires that over the wire, they are converted to lowercase.
Some repeating tasks have to happen on a fixed schedule, e.g. put the trash out every Tuesday night.
But many (most?) of my repeating tasks a) have quite a bit of wiggle room, and b) the scheduling of the next occurrence should be based on when I actually complete the previous occurrence.
So the way that application worked is you'd create tasks and say it could happen as early as this date, it would ideally happen on this date, and it must happen no later than this date. You'd also tell it the ideal time between occurrences. The "priority" of the task would automatically change as you move through that window of dates. When you mark the task as complete, the next earliest/ideal/latest dates would be based on the ideal time between occurrences.
Watering plants is a good example. Let's say I want to water my houseplants every 8 days. I could water them 7 days after I last watered them, but I could also be lazy and wait until 9 or 10 days. If I water on day 10, that doesn't mean I should water again in 6 days (which is what a strict 'repeat every 8 days' task manager would make me do); even though I'm "late" I still want to wait the ideal time until the next occurrence. [I'm just making this up, don't take houseplant care advice from me...although most of my plants live nice long lives.]
tl;dr: The ideal repeating task scheduling should allow for a window of time, not a specific day, in which a task should be completed, and the scheduling of the next window of time should be based on when I actually marked the previous one as complete.
Only a small percentage of people who pirate it are likely to be paying customers if they couldn't pirate it. So the real revenue loss is likely minimal. (Without know more about what the software does it's hard to make generalizations about the target market, though.) And you never know when someone who was able to use/learn the software by pirating it will be in a position to turn around and recommend to their employers or friends your product and those entities will actually buy it.
If there's a specific site or forum online where the crack is being distributed, you can always at least just send a DMCA takedown notice, but overall it's probably not worth spending much time or money worrying about it unless you have real data showing significant missed revenue opportunities (which is at most a tiny fraction of the number of people who pirate the software).
If you can update future versions of the software to not be cracked by the existing mechanism, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF CAUSING HASSLE FOR REAL CUSTOMERS WHO ARE UPGRADING, you could do that too.
I think the concern is around provision 9 of the OGL: "9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."
IANAL so I have no idea what all the implications of this actually are, or how a court might understand it. But at face value, the "any authorized version of this License" makes people think WotC would no longer authorize the 1.0 license and only authorize the 1.1 license, so further copying and distribution of material originally distributed under v1.0 would only be possible under the v1.1 license if it becomes the only "authorized" license.
Does contract law allow for such a thing? I don't know.
> Secondary question: does this apply to OSS as well? Can (e.g) Postgresql wait until the whole world is relying on their software, and then pull a licence change that makes it non-free/libre and requiring a paid licence fee?
No, because free software licenses don't tend to have that confusing "Updating the License" or any way to retroactively change the conditions that the OGL has.
OSS projects could always re-license (at least the code that the project has copyright ownership of) going forward, but that wouldn't affect copies you already got under the previous terms.