Please could you share the name of the manufacturer, so the rest of us know who to be wary of?
11,018 karma · joined November 25, 2009
That's not enough. If I purchase something, I expect to rely on being able to keep it. Its value to me could well be much higher than just the purchase price.
Revocation should come with consequential damages together with the cost of recovering them.
As it happens, I do this. I have various projects burning for years and yet to be published because in my hobby time I value good engineering over results.
Apparently it ages out though and becomes unsafe when it does, resulting in a scandal in the UK:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-66686864
"There is nothing fundamentally wrong with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) as building material or system. Many buildings from the 60s and 70s built from many materials are now having problems due to inadequate maintenance, and old age."
I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean. I've never heard of this problem with regular brick or concrete structures.
I think appropriate attribution is a moral code, but I am not able to attribute every idea I have to all those who helped me develop the general intelligence that I use to develop such ideas.
This idea that absorbing information requires paying a toll needs to change. It was never the case in copyright law anyway (and the courts are beginning to agree). Even if it were, copyright law was founded on the basis of encouraging creativity by creating an economic incentive. Appeal to "compensating the rights holders" therefore needs to be based on the economics, not just some principle about "rights" that never applied to this case anyway.
Debian build tooling places build artifacts in the parent directory on the assumption that this is acceptable, but it then surprises people since it's not the norm anywhere else.
Perhaps this ship has sailed. But I think it's worth pointing out that if you have an option, don't design things that place things inside the source tree if you can avoid it.
I've seen this kind of thing happen not through bias but because good people know good people, where by "good" I mean highly competent. They knew each other through university and other regional connections, so they happened to have the same ethnicity as one might expect from such a regional commonality. One got hired, referred another, and it cascaded. They were great to work with and highly competent, so I don't think there was bias even though it might appear that they're was.
This is an understatement. A friend of mine is a published author in a field that requires correctness. The "legions of people" all got in the way, continuously introducing errors and unable to use a system with any kind of change control, so my friend had to keep rechecking the whole thing and finding further errors that had been introduced without being told about them. This included introducing errors of fact as well as simple things such as not fixing references to areas that they themselves changed. This was from an established publishing house and apparently this is normal. As far as I can tell, the roles that once added professionalism have been eroded both in skill and in budget, such that now they fail to make use of technology and just get in the way. They didn't seem to add any value in my friend's case, anyway. Perhaps it does add still add value to authors who start with a low standard of work. And perhaps the quality of publishers varies massively, resulting in hugely different experiences.
You've been misled.
Irrelevant strawman, since you're not accusing the dnsmasq package in Debian stable of being straight-up broken.
They are not expected to deal with this. This is the responsibility of the Debian package maintainer.
If you (as an upstream) licensed your software in a manner that allows Debian to do what it does, and they do this to serve their users who actually want that, you are wrong to then complain about it.
If you don't want this, don't license your software like that, and Debian and their users will use some other software instead.
For what you want, there are other distributions for that. Debian also has stable-backports that does what you want.
No need to rage on distributions that also provide exactly what their users want.
Looking upthread, we seem to be talking about Claude. Claude is cloud-hosted inference but the harness is local if you're using Claude Code, and can be MITM'd there.
My theory is that lawyers tend to lean on the law to protect them more than others might. "I can ensure that it would be illegal for them to them to expose this data; therefore this method is safe" vs. "If they expose this data, is that a situation I want to deal with?".
I have been wondering if it's more geared at reducing resource usage, given that at the moment there's a known constraint on AI datacenter expansion capability. Perhaps they are struggling to meet demand?
If they all refuse, then they're leaving money on the table. One investor could invest in 10% production only, and that would be very lucrative. It would be exactly my low cost to produce potato scenario.
In practice, they don't all refuse, or all invest. The market finds a balance. In time, producers switch to the new method, because anybody who doesn't leaves an opportunity for someone else to take their business and make more money.
This takes time, though. If we want things to go quicker, then we need to guarantee return on investment for longer, which is exactly what the government does by guaranteeing prices to renewable energy producers.