skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The OED is a historical dictionary; the Oxford Dictionary of English and the New Oxford American Dictionary are explicitly meant to reflect more current usage. At any rate, I think this is getting awfully pedantic; the definition you linked is "obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices," which seems similar enough that I'm not really sure what the point of this argument is. Given that I'm fairly sure the point of this was whether Chick-Fil-A's executives and in-the-company's-name giving exhibits bigotry, by any dictionary anyone's linked to, the answer is "yes."
A credit union is a non-profit. A non-profit can be owned by a government or an individual, similar to how a for-profit can be owned by a government or individual. In other words, the two descriptions are completely orthogonal.

Most credit unions (really, the vast majority) are privately owned, typically by the account holders themselves.
People feel happier when they feel secure. We have nicer gadgets now but life is also more stressful because finding a stable long-term career is more difficult.
Exactly, folks above need to be more specific when they say 'GPL' because there are radical differences between GPLv3 and GPLv2.
I will remove "proprietary" from my post. The gist of my objection is not the content of the license, but the implied endorsement of the Apache Software Foundation.
Its over 5k from Bedford to London (65 miles) This is of course taken out of your salary post tax and Ni contributions.
If Google goes to China, will it tell the truth about Tiananmen Square?
Can we discuss alternative to these big platforms? This is the only long term solution to the problem. Decentralization is need of the hour. Why isn't etherium based solutions gaining traction even after repeated backlash by these big platforms on multiple fronts.
This is a pretty cool example of cybernetics ala Stafford Beer - constant information and reaction to streamline production. I'm excited to see this be brought in to more production (though maybe it has, and most places aren't as upfront as this). It's truly a shame the Chilean experiment in the early 70s didn't work out.

On a side note, it's interesting that Kubernetes is the word from which cybernetics is derived, meaning "governance".
Well, it’s a 6 man team so most of our trade offs were for expedience, not the worlds greatest architecture. We cheated and sync’d data using a HA MongoDB setup amongst the cluster. RKE for K8s clustering was a life saver (nothing easier at this point on bare metal IMO), although RKE can be brittle at times.
> those late nights were essentially for nothing

Except they weren't. If a junior banker was placed on the Aramco deal team, that tells you they're well regarded. You don't put your C team on the Aramco deal. Furthermore, a client of this calibre brings together powerful people from across the firm and industry. The juniors will have had a chance to network with them. That's huge. (Not to mention, everyone at these firms gets paid salary, benefits and bonuses.)

I'm not harping on this to be mean. Downside management matters. That seems to have gone out the door around cryptocurrencies. These bankers made something if the deal failed and a lot more if it went through. Cryptocurrency investors had no such levers with which to manage downside risk (apart from limiting exposure). Savvy investors (and bankers) get rightfully suspicious at all-or-nothing propositions like the one cryptos collectively pitched.
> Open core is a fairly honest way to go about developing open source software.

Only if you're equally honest in admitting it's the most risky approach wrt sustainability and therefore the one most subject to strange capitalization mechanisms (and endless blog post justifications for them :-)). They go out of business all the time, leaving stale software in their wake that might have otherwise had steady maintenance if independence and growth were less paramount (like before commercialization where, in many cases, the burden was just as large). Either way, it's definitely the hardest model and if you have a piece of open source software that must have growth or you are currently no longer able to sustain it, I would try to find any other way possible to finance it...but I agree sometimes it's just not there so you build a business around it.

And I'd change "developing" to "financing" since there are many more honest ways, just not at scale.
We engineers could also develop more intelligent and robust rating systems.
It is a learning experience and I totally agree with not pouring money into advertising and even building more features unless you're see of the outcome.
Xbox Working on Subscription Service That Includes Console, Xbox Live, Game Pass
Except they’re the opposite. They’re simple redistribution between private entities. EBT doesn’t mean a public employees’ union now runs yojr grocery store.
I think that Common Clause is proprietary while AGPL is open source. This should not be a matter of opinion. AGPL asks you to redistribute the work back, however if you complain with the share back clauses, you can do whatever you want with the code. This is not the case of Common Clause. However if we don't focus too much on the Open Source license yes/no, we can see how there is a spectrum of licenses... and Common Clause allows many freedoms to actual users compared to other non-OSS licenses, and in certain respects even VS AGPL.
That's very intolerant of you to cry bigot about people who support LGBT rights.

Totally bizarre intolerant nonsense.
Or for that matter Mao's Great Leap Forward.
Ha. As an Apple fan, I can’t see them doing that. They wanted the money to make their services revenue look better.

I imagine it wasn’t close to 10-15% of purchase on average anyway. And I’m guessing it didn’t apply to IAP, where the real money is.
My coworkers found this one quite amusing.
The Apocalyptic Architecture of One 1970s Retail Chain
What is the situation with GPL (2 or 3) for those issues with cloud providers? Is it better than BSD licenses in that regard?
AWS is probably unstoppable via licensing, they can do a clean room implementation from the wire protocol - if they really want to. (Though with the Oracle v Google API copyrightability lawsuit ongoing, this might change, but that seems like a small win for a big loss.)
I'm glad that Wikipedia agrees. But yeah, if you can catch 200 whales, there is probably at least a few multiples of that left...
What happens when you spend a year using science to improve your brain
> 750,000 GB = 750 TB, and you can buy an 8 TB hard drive for $150. So for $15,000 you can store 500,000 human genomes.

As others have mentioned [1], the raw sequencing data (still) has to be stored, so 1.5GB is off by about 30x. Even at 6:1 compression, that's still 5x.

More importantly, though, the cost of storage, especially at scale, is significantly higher than just the price of bare drives. Backblaze famously complained about this [2] in 2009.

Even their particularly cheap, particularly low-performance solution claimed to add almost 45% on top of the cost of the bare drives. A higher-performancd storage system (using, say, standard SAS expander backplanes instead of their non-standard SATA multipliers) has, in my experience, added 70% on top of the bare drives (and that's being frugal, which seems remarkably rare, even among startups).

Your $15k is now $128k, minimum. That's just purchase cost, and, while operating cost isn't huge for that little storage, it's not zero. The cost gets much, much worse, if the orgnization can't/won't hire someone like me or won't allow that someone to implement such a frugal DIY assembly (which is the vast majority of organizations today).

That leaves "enterprise" storage or cloud, which are both approximately as expensive. I recently heard an estimate of half a million dollars per petabyte for NetApp, which would translate to $1,875,000 here.

[1] Well detailed by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17821523

[2] famous on HN, anyway. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-...
And this illustrates why the Commons Clause naming and usage guidelines are so problematic.
> A lot of people don't have a choice otherwise, except homelessness and poverty. Not exactly a 'free' system.

Right. The system we are in is not a free system and those are indeed problems with this system.

> Runaway free market Capitalism creates this problem as it sends money to the very top leaving the rest to fight for a small portion of the pie.

Crony capitalism creates this problem, not free market capitalism. Crony capitalism is an opposite of a free market.

> Working is not voluntary in USA unless you already have plenty of money, or are supported by someone with money.

It is voluntary. It is unfortunately necessary too, in many cases, but again, the United States are only weakly capitalist.

> There's no such thing as scarcity of pretty much anything in USA.

The United States’ GDP per capita is $59,501. That’s scarcity.

> We have 18.9 million vacant homes, with 3.5 million homeless [1].

I just mentioned rent controls. I agree that this is bad, but it’s got nothing to do with capitalism.

> None of this would happen under a sane system with checks and balances.

Agreed. We might disagree about which system this is though.

> What you're seeing right now is _raw capitalism_ at work.

Either we’re not using the same definition of capitalism or it isn’t. I am anarcho-capitalist. Raw capitalism looks like not having a state, or at the very least having only a minimal state. What I’m seeing is Donald Trump imposing tariffs on solar panels, washing machines, and imports of steel and aluminum. Raw capitalism this is anything but.
Unfortunately, it is true.

As an Android dev I still hope that one day Google Play will try to clean the store of all those bad apps that lower down good developer's income.
Is it fair to say we never had much to worry about when it comes to preserving the aspects of the environment over which property rights can be doled out? e.g. Forests, to some degree, fish in the oceans. Because once the environment can become private property the owner has all the incentive in the world to utilize it efficiently and won't over harvest it except through foolishness or lack of knowledge.

But unfortunately this is not the reality when it comes to climate change, unless we gave ownership of the Earth to a despot and made it his personal property.
Why are you bringing it up then?

I'm doing my best to avoid concrete assertions about your personality or preferences. But I can't help but notice that you're acting in a manner contrary to your stated preferences.
It's worth noting that Black Hat was spun off from Def Con to get corporations to allow employees to expense it. Often speakers at Black Hat also present at Def Con. Def Con as a matter of policy does not collect any information about its attendees [0].

[0] Read the fine print: https://media.defcon.org/DEF%20CON%2026/DEF%20CON%2026%20rec...
You sound like you have an axe to grind. What's your point? Obama waged wars, thus it makes sense that people dismiss the fact that emissions are destroying the environment?

>the more heed paid to the government, the more reliance on and guidance from the government - the worse

What does this even mean? Are you ideologically opposed to mandating seat belts and fire codes and that kind of thing or are you only talking about climate change when you say "the more heed paid to the government, the more reliance on and guidance from the government - the worse."?
I find this article's angle to be somewhat refreshing, simply because there's a segment of the OSS world that is allergic to open discussion of funding. Some of the anti-commercial arguments I've seen are absolutely fantastical, amounting to demanding OSS to be a massive entitlement to the free time of others.

This also gets to the biggest criticism I have of the FSF: the only measure of success is a narrow definition of "freedom" -- with little to no discussion of what social systems, economic structures, and advocacy might be useful and/or necessary to support those aims.
Many major PC games publishers and developers have chosen either to not to use Steam or have reduced their support including EA, Epic, Microsoft (including Mojang), Riot, Activision Blizzard and Bethesda.
I thought the parent meant something like US state banks 1837-1862
Quantum leap for Einstein's equivalence principle
One major barrier is that you don’t have to meet any of your coworkers unless you explicitly seek them out, and your employer certainly isn’t going to help you. So yes I would say that labor organizing across a gig platform is considerably harder than for factories across geographic regions. The social fabric is a lot harder to construct
That is epic, and i am stealing that name.
Having a chickfila greatly increases realestate value for the landlord though, more so than other restaurant chains like McDonalds.
That's not really a fair comparison since Apple has to curate the App Store and is 100% responsible for the service as well. It's not like you're buying an iPhone or iPad without knowing that all your apps come from the App Store and that's part of the value - unlike Android, you know exactly where the app is coming from, what it is and isn't allowed to do, and have an expectation that the app has been reasonably reviewed so it's not a danger to you or the device.

Steam is almost exactly the same way because it's not like you can take your Steam purchase and use it without Steam. Yes, you can buy DLC and other add-ons directly from the publisher if you wanted to but that's moreso because of how the publishers have created their products rather than how Steam works as a platform.

As for your Amazon example, Apple does absolutely add value there. They manage and keep track of all your purchases and payments so that there's a single, unified method for both paying and resolving issues. Additionally, since Apple functions as the payment processor, you're also paying for the security functionality. The only reason you have to make a purchase from the Amazon website is because Amazon wants to control the purchasing and doesn't want to pay Apple for their payment processing.

It's just a difference of whether you prefer the consistency of the experience that Apple prefers at the expense of other companies or whether you prefer to deal with several different experiences that could potentially open everything up for fraud and problems. People who aren't as tech savvy or who don't want to have to wade through a bunch of BS just to make a purchase may prefer Apple's method. Others may prefer digging through and doing all that in order to have a broader pool to choose from.
The source of profit isn't friction, it's scarcity. Friction can create scarcity by harming competition, but that is actively harmful. In some hypothetical utopia with literally zero scarcity, nobody cares about profit because everything is free.

In any real system with non-zero scarcity, profit is relative. If you have less of it in one place there is more of it in another. In the case of things like garbage collection, the other place is when consumers use the money they didn't burn on artificially wasteful trash collection to buy something else. Which benefits both the consumers and the suppliers of the other product.

Creating friction on purpose to artificially increase the profits of one industry is a deadweight loss. The transfer of wealth is the broken window fallacy but the resources wasted on the artificially imposed friction are real.

And many types of contract are a violation of antitrust law for exactly that reason.
People underestimate how difficult it is to create a popular open source project. It's very competitive. You're competing not just with other open source projects but also with SaaS solutions from well-funded companies; and you have to compete with a $0 marketing budget.

Also, if the project does become popular eventually (which is very unlikely), maintenance is a lot of work. To make matters worse, there is a general tendency that if things go wrong, the community will blame you but if things go well, you get almost no credit.

Even if your project has several thousands of stars on GitHub, it means nothing financially. Most of these OSS authors can't afford to quit their day job even though their project may be generating millions of dollars of value for other people.

Money is an important topic to open source authors because after a decade of working for free during nights and weekends, most of them would love to be able to afford to quit their day jobs to focus exclusively on their projects but they can't do that; they're tired but they have to keep soldiering on with the 80+ hour work week.

Being an open source author is not a wise life decision right now. I think that any business innovation which helps keep open source projects going should be welcome.
> you’re encouraging rounded shoulders

I lift weights regularly, which I'm guessing compensates. I agree that it would cause problems sans weightlifting.
Sorry - I wasn't very clear.

When I say planet I meant the animals, people and our environment. The UN had a study a few years ago [0] - urging to reduce meat consumption or reduce it heavily - due to the impact on the environment.

For me personally it's more about the animals themselves. They are sentient beings and how can we justify creating hell on Earth for them and killing them just so we can derive some short lived taste pleasure in our mouth. Meat tastes great, but the cost is too high and it's irresponsible to continue feeding this pleasure (when we have so many better alternatives) after we've got all the evidence that it's destructive on so many levels.

> [...] rather than blaming producers who are actually in power

Our demand for animal flesh and animal products is causing this, so the consumer is in power. Our meat consumption is cultural, we've been growing up with it. How come for example we don't explain to our kids at a young age that the tasty bacon comes from Pepper the pig's sister and friends? How come we don't want to show them the realities of meat production... because we know it's literally a horror show.

Watch this kid realising herself what's on her plate. Don't tell me it's not heart breaking to watch this? [1] Kudos to the dad for not forcing her to continue to eat meat.

> [...] who might be influenced by an idea especially when it is at odds with one's material context.

I'm not quite following, can you clarify?

> I find the end of (4) an argument from other leftists who are vegan really really suspect.

I don't really follow this either - what is suspect and what's your definition of leftist? Here is the definition of veganism [2] - it's bascially trying to end cruelty towards other sentient beings - why would one not support this view?

[0] http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/dtix1262xpa-prior...

[1] Irish girl doesn't want animals to be chopped up anymore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsaGeAz3TSM

[2] Definition of Veganism

Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

edit: typos
An example: expensive products, like new cars and refrigerators, tend to slump more during general downturns. Thus, fund managers may shift out of car & fridge stocks into something with smaller consumer price tags, like soda stocks.
It is not "mixed OSS/commercial", because it is not OSS.

Using the text of the Apache License 2.0 as a point of departure is fine. But please make it clear what you are doing.
I don't know why he doesn't comment on it when it's already written on the Commons Clause FAQ. He thinks the "bad guys" are the cloud providers.

https://redislabs.com/community/licenses/

"However, today’s cloud providers have repeatedly violated this ethos by taking advantage of successful open source projects and repackaging them into competitive, proprietary service offerings. Cloud providers contribute very little (if anything) to those open source projects. Instead, they use their monopolistic nature to derive hundreds of millions dollars in revenues from them. Already, this behavior has damaged open source communities and put some of the companies that support them out of business."
Why was there a floor on the price?
My phone works great as is thanks!
Additionally, Unreal Engine 4 charges only 5% gross on revenue exceeding 3,000 USD per quarter. Epic's CEO tweeted about these markets taking 30% where other transaction facilitators only take 2-5%.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/89831654549...

It feels like in tech there are a ton of leech-like companies attempting to leverage their way into middleman positions and then rest on their laurels while dictating terms to the supply side as they hold the customer side hostage. I'm not a fan of it, and I'm glad that in the past few years there seems to be a growing awareness of it.

Tim Sweeney and Epic have been hugely supportive to other developers and I wish other companies tried to offer as much value and support to the developers that their business rests upon.
If you decide to play around with it, we use RKE to build and manage the k8s environments locally.
>A public listing wouldn't change the value of the company. This is not some hot high-growth tech IPO that retail investors would clamor over.

Why would that make a difference? Generally, an asset the same risk/return profile will be more valuable if it's highly liquid, right? Which an IPO would do.
Ask HN: API for detecting paywalls?
Is there an API to detect whether or not a URL is behind a paywall?

For a news aggregator site, I'm building, I'd like to be able to tag articles that are behind a paywall automatically.
Adult-Born Neurons Protect Against Chronic Stress
They aren't really twins at all, but to save the fare, she'll say they are while riding the bus. Most of the time, they aren't.
Unfortunately you’re right. Nowadays, many people here in Germany can afford a house or an apartment in the big cities only if they get some money from their (grand)parents. I think one major reason for this is the free flow of capital globally.

The effect in its extreme form: people get evicted, buildings get built/renovated (“Luxusbeton”), int’l investors buy hoping for ever increasing prices, apts stay empty. Insane
>Doesn't Valve take 30% from games on Steam? But they're complaining Apple taking 30% is too much?

Nobody is locked to valve on PC. Large game publishers have their own PC stores precisely to avoid getting ripped off by Valve. EA has Origin, Ubisoft has Uplay, Blizzard/Activision has Battle.net. MS has the Microsoft Store. There are many little indie stores with their own handling of profits, like itch.io :

>itch.io costs nothing to use. You are free to create pages and upload your content without ever having to pay anything. Advertisements will never be placed on any of your pages.

>You get to decide how much you want to support itch.io by choosing what percentage of your sales should go towards our operational costs and continued development of the platform. We call that open revenue sharing.

Subscription MMORPGs also all have their own payment schemes and external launchers that bypass Valve's little greedy hands.

Being locked to a single app store on any platform is a mistake. PCs are great because we don't suffer this, for now. Until MS decides to make Windows S the default and lock people from freely switching to a normal version of Windows.
But there are?