throwhypothetic

I do the same with clip-on guitar tuners.

I'd have to google "bubble sort" to even remember what it is; but I don't think that has any bearing on whether I'd understand it once I remembered what it was.

Time should be a signed int with enough bits to go backward from the epoch at t=0 to the big bang at t=negative whatever.

In the context of civilization collapse, I think the author is overestimating how likely it is that people will be able to figure out subsistence farming using only locally available materials before they starve. Does anyone on Earth still do that, i.e. with no reliance on materials shipped in from elsewhere?

This time it is different. People really are doing their jobs without ever visiting the office. They may not readily shift back.

As for San Francisco, some would argue that the "end of San Francisco" already occurred because of the tech industry. People are obsessed with the idea that tech will leave town because they preferred the way it was before.

That much I understand, but what's the default license if the contributors didn't specify a license with their contributions? Is it implied that their contribution is licensed according to the full project's license?

Much of the discussion is assuming that because the project was AGPL, then the various contributions were AGPL as well. Whether or not that's the case is my question.

If a project is licensed under the AGPL, does that mean contributions to it are also licensed under the AGPL?

Hypothetically if all the contributions were public domain code included in an AGPL project, then wouldn't the maintainer be within their rights to include those contributions in a closed-source version of the project?