seandougall

I feel like where this debate breaks down is in trying to apply the same license to both reusable libraries and finished products.

For a library, an MIT license is much more likely to get it adopted in a finished product that is accessible and maintained. A GPLed library can only get adopted in a GPLed project, which means there may be a ton of economic constraints that make the library's functionality inaccessible to anyone who doesn't have the time or expertise to build an entire application around it.

Also worth noting: to most ordinary people, GPL on a library is like a Post-It that says, "Free—take one!" on the door of a safe. It's nice to have permission, but it doesn't do much good if you don't know anyone who has the combination. The GPL-everywhere philosophy seems to assume a magical utopia where everyone is a skilled programmer fluent in multiple languages.

For finished products, though, an MIT license doesn't necessarily make sense, for the reasons lots of folks here have pointed out; namely, any big corp could compile the code unmodified, brand it, and sell it. If you want to make a complete application free and permissive for end users, GPL seems like the best way to guarantee that.

> and pass it off as your own

No, the MIT license requires attribution by including the original copyright notice with any distribution of the software. You can claim credit for the parts you build around it, but you can't claim to have written the MIT-licensed part.

In particular, the scheme doesn't necessarily refer to a protocol (e.g. application-specific schemes like `chrome:` that don't involve network access at all).

If you get a pebble stuck in your shoe, you can usually get over it within a couple minutes, and start to ignore the minor annoyance. But if it stays there all day, it could eventually get pretty painful. It all depends on how much walking you do.

That relies on a number of speculations, most importantly that GP was incorrect about the event having only been published on Facebook. I've seen enough small organizations work that way that I wouldn't be so hasty to second-guess GP's description.

I'm not sure I see the benefit of that. If the plain English version is good enough to be legally binding and fully explanatory, they could just use it. If it's not good enough, but is still presented as part of the ToS, then it has the potential to introduce ambiguity that could override the legalese version. Either way, it makes the ToS somewhere between 25% and 50% longer than the legalese version alone.

Email will notify you of events that are only publicized on Facebook? :thinking_face:

I mean, to be fair, even Facebook won't necessarily tell you about an event unless the event creator pays them money to promote it. It's actually not a great platform for small-scale publicity, and _only_ publicizing an event on Facebook is clearly a mistake for a number of reasons. But despite its many virtues, email doesn't actually address GP's case at all.

Some sugar is vegan. Most isn’t, though most vegans I know conveniently ignore that: [1]

[1] https://www.peta.org/living/food/is-sugar-vegan/

I would be very surprised if every major cell phone manufacturer in the world wasn’t working on this right now.

So does using an alphanumeric passcode instead. Especially if you include capital letters and punctuation that you can access with a swipe starting at the shift or number key (so you never actually tap the key that produces the input).

Probably because Apple has increased their campus security in recent decades. :)

https://www.pacifict.com/Story/

Very much so. It’s a useful layer to build an API on top of, but saying a device speaks OSC is like saying a backend service speaks HTTP.

There’s also MIDI timecode, which has to send at four messages per frame (up to 120 messages per second), and whose entire job is to convey timing. It’s basically unusable over WiFi.

OSC is fantastic in many ways, but it makes for a pretty inefficient (and unnecessary) replacement for the primary use case of MIDI, which is note on/off messages. It’s much better suited to some of the other layers that got bolted on top of MIDI, such as MIDI Show Control. For most musical purposes, MIDI v1 is perfectly sufficient, well-documented, optimized, and open (from the standpoint of being free to implement).

OSC absolutely has caught on in a lot of professional applications, just not the ones that MIDI was initially designed to serve. It’s huge in the world of theater, for example.

(Background: I wrote the initial OSC implementation for QLab [a theatrical show control application].)

> they're going to go underground and create their own communities under the radar

I dunno, they're already doing that anyway. And OP clearly has no interest in actually sticking around and debating this point, just in trolling us, so it's not like flagging their post shuts down conversation in any meaningful way.

Costco fits a rather different definition of “bulk”. They carry 50 lb bags of rice, but they don’t have dispensers where you can fill your own bag and pay by weight, which is what GP was almost certainly referring to.

Until the invention of the phrase "software engineer", is my theory.

Their gender is rather pivotal to the story told by the article. It's not presented as remarkable that these two programmers were women -- in fact, that was quite commonplace at the time -- but rather, the article argues that their contributions have been minimized in the intervening years in part because they are women.

As for the grammatical question, there are various theories why "woman" and "women" have started being treated adjectivally, e.g. [1]. I agree that it's problematic, but it seems to be a response to equally problematic baggage attached to the way the word "female" has been used in other contexts. In other words: grammatically, you're absolutely right, but it turns out it's not _really_ just a grammatical question.

[1] https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/02/when-you-should-use...

More to the point IMO, it takes that data from anybody else you happen to forward the email to. If the journalist forwarded an email with the tracking pixel to their source, it wouldn't have to get any of that fine-grained information; even just the IP address could be enough to de-anonymize the source.

No, but there certainly is a macOS team.

According to the article, there's a huge disparity just in transportation costs, before wages even begin to factor in:

> Today, Recology, San Francisco’s employee-owned recycling company, pays £230-to-£390 to ship a container of recycled plastic across the Pacific–a fraction of the £2,700-to-£3,100 price tag for transporting that same container across the United States to plastic processing plants that are mostly located in the South, according to Robert Reed, a company spokesman.

> One passenger carries a bag so heavy it bends the slide halfway through and violently hits the ground

Not to discount the stupidity involved in holding onto one's bags (which I absolutely agree is absurd, whether it's attributable to simple human nature or not), but that makes it sound like the slide was defective as well. Even a very heavy carry-on is relatively modest compared to the weight of the person carrying it.

I don't follow; that may mean nobody left their bags sitting in the aisle, but surely it doesn't mean there weren't delays. I've often had to wait upwards of five minutes to deplane at the end of a flight while other passengers grab their belongings, despite the aisle being clear. Bags absolutely slow things down.

(Unless that survivor meant the aisle was free from other passengers, but that ... seems like an unlikely interpretation.)

It’s not zero — those -retain and -release calls still exist when necessary and have a small penalty — but it does minimize them well, and is lower overhead and vastly more predictable than GC.

Not to mention users! I can't count how many times I've seen bug reports responded to with a dismissive "you're welcome to file a PR", which is just a thinly veiled expression of the same attitude: you're not valuable, your domain expertise is not valuable, and the time you're taking to engage in the development cycle is not valuable; only your code is valuable. It's really not a big mystery why more average users don't flock to that sort of treatment.

Even when that attitude isn't so explicitly directed at users, you're right about it being visibly directed at other community members. It all sends a clear message, such that the average prospective user will move on, thinking "that application is meant for someone else."

> Wouldn't work - they do periodic checks after approval. Something more sophisticated appears to be going on here.

What if you randomly redirect, say, 95% of clicks to eBay and take the remaining 5% to your phishing site? Each of Google's periodic checks would only have a 5% chance of catching you, but if you can get enough impressions over eBay's legitimate ads (which is an entirely separate facet to all of this), you'd still get a ton of bites, because so many people get to eBay the way Aunt Sue does.

Better yet, your redirect service could look at the client IP address and only redirect to the phishing site if it matches a known range for, say, Comcast or Charter. Or use it to drill down even farther and set up multiple spear phishing campaigns.

It seems like there's no shortage of ways to abuse this, and for Google to allow redirects without some sort of robust verification that the advertiser owns the destination domain (such as @gnud's certificate-based suggestion in a sibling comment) seems downright negligent, if that is indeed how they operate.

Presumably the airline could always fall back on traditional paper/mobile boarding passes if the system goes down. It’d mean a bit of a delay, but it’s not like the whole operation would grind to a halt.

It’s true that we have no guarantee that the airlines won’t save our photos along with our ID information, but they _could_ already have been doing that for years. There just doesn’t seem to be that much reason why they would.

I don’t disagree with your overarching point, but it can’t be quite that simple, if it works as advertised. In order for it to send a name with the photo, the passenger would have to scan some sort of documentation to provide their name, which would defeat the purpose of “your face is your boarding pass”.

It seems more likely that the CBP system compares against passenger manifests of upcoming flights. Which isn’t necessarily more intrusive, but it is a bit less straightforward than a simple yes/no query.

> All of this is brought about by the individual mandate

Some of us are old enough to remember dealing with healthcare before Obamacare, and can testify to this having been the status quo long before there was an individual mandate.

> Now if you walk in with no referral

You mean like, say, an ER visit?

Though, actually, the one time I've been referred to the ER by a doctor (he called ahead and everything), the billing was still a shitshow. Insurance delayed paying for months while they tried to work out a way to claim it was a pre-existing condition (this was pre-Obamacare), until the hospital gave up and tried to send me directly to collections for upwards of a quarter million dollars.

Given that most private practices (around here, anyway) usually have lucrative hospital affiliations, the incentive to keep doctors happy by keeping patients happy really doesn't exist.