skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> there is a fixed amount of equity capital floating in the world at any given moment

This is absolutely not the case.
The title is a literal command, it doesn't need to "imply" anything, because it is what he is telling you [not] to do.
The primary limiting factor at the moment is obviously the insane price of rocketing stuff into space.

The people who are opposed to nuclear power because of the military proliferation risk might have something to say about the capability to transmit large amounts of power from space to the surface of this planet.
There's no such thing as EU visa. You probably refer to Schengen. Here's a list of countries requiring a visa to visit Schengen zone:

https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/who-needs-schengen-visa/

Among the people needing visa are citizens of India, China and Russia. I don't know which world you count them in, but that's helluva lots of people.
Tell that to my 70 year old grandmother who has replaced both the motherboard and hard drive in her Lenovo desktop. If you design a somewhat reasonably easy to repair computer people are more than happy to fix it themselves. It's only because of the difficulty of repairing apple products that people shy away from the idea.
"BSD license but secretly I'm not going to let you relicense" means that you have not in fact contributed under the BSD license in the first place, but your secret license.

I understand what you're saying, but even if you do release BSD software along with code under a different license, you are still bound by the (very minimal) requirements of the BSD license.
> Open source is a commitment to your community. Once you make it, you cannot take it back. You don’t get the benefits associated with being an open source project if you have an exit hatch. You may argue that it’s your right to do what you want with your project, but making it open source is explicitly waiving that right.

I open source things I write, and I love open source but I think this stance is disingenuous.

Yes you should maintain your project in the future so that you don’t leave your users hanging to dry, but sometimes life happens and you can’t continue your open source project in its current form.

With a CLA, the creators of a project that would otherwise be unable to continue the project due to lack of funds can develop a proprietary version that they can earn money from licensing to people. And hopefully they will continue to maintain an open source version that receives bug fixes and some features while certain other features are only developed for the proprietary version.

Demanding that those who make open source software do so under strict conditions will only serve to deter people from making open source software in the first place, IMO.

Certainly it can be frustrating to be a user of a software and have them close the source, but what would the alternative be? Probably that it just died, so for you the outcome would be the same.

Open source is great. It saves time and money by letting people and companies make use of the work done by others to save themselves from having to duplicate the effort. But it is never going to be the case that we can demand that someone else continues maintaining a product for us for free.

When a product goes closed source, from your point of view it should not be much different from had it shut down completely. The last open source version of the product is still available so if someone was goinging to step up and maintain it into the future they still can, and if they weren’t going to, well then it makes no big difference what the original authors decide to do anyway.

Personally the main reason I don’t use CLAs for my projects is that I am using a very permissive license for most of my projects already, the ISC license, and I don’t foresee any situation where I would want to switch to another license for my projects.
You wouldn't use batteries generally though.

For example, if you had hydro-storage, you'd use the power from the wind or solar to pump water into giant reservoirs. When wind or solar is unavailable, power is drawn from the hydro reservoirs by letting the stored water flow through turbines. (So a dam, basically.)

So, yeah, building reservoirs is pretty well defined. And would certainly take much less time than building a nuclear plant. (The cost would be orders of magnitude lower as well.)

Still has regulatory issues, just not nearly as many as dead batteries or nuclear power plants do.
Why would people contribute to a project they don't agree to the license of? Isn't it good to discourage contributions from people who don't agree in the first place, avoiding future conflict?
For anyone interested in learning more about HA and consistency, I found this book very interesting: https://dataintensive.net/. The author does a great job developing an intuition for progress made along with trade-offs at each stage.
AI could predict cognitive decline leading to Alzheimer's in the next five years
EA has started and perpetuated trends that have permeated the industry and affected it in a negative way.

While I'm sure lots of individuals over there are doing good work the company as a whole deserves the hate that it gets.

It's like working at Google and being upset when someone says, "Google is evil" because you're working on a morally good project.
I’m not familiar with those. What do _you_ think about them? :)
Good points, thanks for the clarifications.

> I did not say that, nor do I believe it, nor is it really related.

Sorry for putting words in your mouth, but that's kind of how it came across as I read it.
ICESat-2 successfully starts lasering Earth, telling us about it
Qubits kept together by shouting at them with microwaves
That web site is so full of cruft, it has become unusable. Even the best iPhone can‘t change that.
post has been deleted sometime after January this year:
http://web.archive.org/web/20180126235643/https://blog.cari....
I've always been under the impression that CLA's are meant to ensure that contributors can not retract their contributions once they've made them. I'd be fine with signing such an agreement. Relicensing other people's work, on the other hand, does seem like a dramatic overreach indeed.
Hopefully all of their authentication methods are hosted in-house, on-prem and not outsourced or outside of secure boundaries. Everything has a back-door these days and leaks like a waterfall. :-)
> because all Open Source Software is Free Software

It's exactly the opposite: All Free Software is open source, but not vice versa [1].

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
It's not clear to me which populations were studied.

But this is a telling point:

> They were also very clear, she said, that people who were never exposed to the sun ...

So I'll keep taking the pills because here in Norway there really isn't much sun from now until March, or at least it is too cold to expose much skin to it.
The agreement does put a lot of limits on what the FSF can do with it.

https://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-110.html

>The Foundation promises that all distribution of the Work, or of any work "based on the Work," that takes place under the control of the Foundation or its assignees, shall be on terms that explicitly and perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to which the terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these terms, to redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same terms.

It goes on like that for a bit, to essentially promise that your software will always stay free (as in freedom).

It also gives you (but not the FSF) the right to use your own code in proprietary software, with 30 days notice.

It's unlike CLAs as described in the article.
Mattress Firm Files for Bankruptcy also they will be closing almost 200 stores
Machine Learning in Searching Remote Projects
I've been happily using the LanguageClient LSP implementation [1] for about a year.

[1] https://github.com/autozimu/LanguageClient-neovim
Maybe I've not had great Turkish Delight, but my reaction to it was the same as this person's:

“I tried Turkish Delight and it was good but not ‘sell out my family to the White Witch‘ good.”

Source: https://twitter.com/missmfair/status/585582845554532353

Ref:
https://www.tor.com/2016/08/08/why-was-turkish-delight-the-u...
Ok, so you’re comparing the service to standard consumer “anonymizing” VPNs, which no real business would be using. You’re probably better off (and need to address in your value proposition) comparing to VPNs provided by standard firewalls that would normally be used in a business, like Cisco AnyConnect, etc. That’s what your real competition is.
Snapchat CEO’s leaked memo on survival
Gripping article. I read it about five years ago and still remember it clearly.

If you are browsing and aren't sure if the length of the article is worth your time, the goal of this comment is to convince you it is!
FCC slaps a huge fine on telemarketer caught 'spoofing'
Nope, I've lived in 3 different EU countries.
Mozilla resolves critical code execution flaw in Thunderbird email client
The Snowden leaks were denied plenty by the companies involved.

https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html
"What the CLA is actually used for is to give the project maintainers the ability to relicense your work under a more restrictive software license, up to and including making it entirely closed source."

This goes both ways. It also gives the project maintainers the ability to relicense your work under a less restrictive licence, up to and including making it even more open (eg. from GPL to MIT).

Note that what you contribute will be open source forever regardless of a CLA: as soon as it is released (the open source version your patch is based on, and your open source contribution), the open source -ness cannot be revoked by anyone. A "community fork" from the most recent open source release is always possible, as has been seen multiple times with multiple projects, including those with CLAs.

What the author is really saying is that by signing a CLA you're revoking your claim to what the project maintainers do with the project _in the future_, after they have worked on it some more.

There is, after all, a huge asymmetry here. In a project managed by a major sponsor requiring a CLA, your contribution is probably tiny compared to the work done by project sponsors. In this case, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the sponsors to be wanting not to encumber their project with the removal of their ability to take _future work_ on their project closed source (because they were originally the sole copyright holders), just for the sake of a tiny contribution.

Do those tiny contributions add up? I can only think of a few projects when they do, and that's where the ecosystem consists of multiple corporate sponsors (Linux and Postgres come to mind). In most cases where there is a CLA, there is a single corporate sponsor who employs full time developers, and no other developers are contributing full time so the majority of ongoing work is done by the single sponsor. If you want to argue that the CLA is enforcing this condition, then go ahead and fork the project to prove me wrong!

If you're contributing a major component, then sure, you might want to think about it, though even then you're going to get somebody else to maintain that component for you indefinitely if you contribute it.

If you're contributing a minor bugfix, then you're probably hurting yourself (by making yourself maintain that fix forever, or forcing yourself to maintain an entire fork) more than achieving out of principle.
Yeah, it's a major procedure. I had just one inch done on a femur due to a growth plate fracture that had left the leg a little shorter than the other leg, and it wasn't fun. The growing pains were the worst.
This dark web market is dedicated to compromising your emails
Does it seem a little odd for the 5 eyes to be weighing in while the us gov is silent? I am not sure how to read this but it is weird. I have never seen them make a public statement on a hack in a way specific to specific companies (and not others mentioned in the bloomberg article).

Even if taken at face value, it can only mean 2 things. 1. They already, thouroughly investigated it (draw your own conclusions what they found or any involvement) or 2. They just issued an official statement without possibly having the time to investigate the merits of the accusation. This not only doesn't pass the sniff test, its evidince of yet another turd on our lawn.
Any of those public or easy to get in to?

Would be nice to quantify this.
>> Free and open source software licenses grant explicit freedoms to three groups: the maintainers, the users, and the contributors.

> This is not the case of all open source licenses. And that is fine. Don't assume all my work has to be part of your crusade.

Indeed, I've contributed to one open source project with a CLA, it had an Apache v2 license... So It didn't really seem to make any practical difference to that license. The very short agreement basically just made it explicit that they are not responsible of a contributor submitting code they don't own copyright to - which seems a little overly defensive but fair enough as Apache doesn't explicitly protect against that.

That said, I don't like the barrier CLAs impose on open source projects. Has anyone seen GPL+CLA in the wild?
I agree with this thinking. It is also possible that competitors to multi-billion contract being awarded to AWS by DoD wants an argument to distributing the contract among many cloud suppliers to reduce risk.
Bloomberg has worked with this story for a year - is that a man-year or a calendar year? If the latter, both trade-war and the DoD contract are less probable.
Software Library: C64
PSA: Tax authorities are not going to ask you to go to a Bitcoin ATM
I still don't know what Turkish Delight even is after reading
> The other problem is that free markets are self correcting.

The use of the term "correcting" gives the free market way too much credit. Especially given that, as you note, there is no objective mechanical principle at work besides mass hysteria.

It would be better simply to say that _free markets fluctuate a lot_.
And you'd have to add to that objection the people who oppose nuclear power because of the costs. Those people would definitely be opposed to these ideas barring some new technological development that made space-based infrastructure several orders of magnitude less expensive.
Still socially liberal (I mean who in 2018 actually isn't?)

Is this sarcasm? I'm not trying to be curt, but obviously lots of people are not socially liberal.
UX Tools in Artificial Neural Network Design
North Korea is the most destructive cyber threat right now: FireEye
To impress the people who designed the PDP11 at the time they designed it, you better just tell them we still use C and UNIX.
> The PC's were a nightmare (not in terms of the hardware, but because of the sofware) from a management and administration perspective. Primarily because of Windows.

That's a human skills problem, not a software problem. Managing a large fleet of Windows PC's is a solved problem if your sysadmins know Active Directory. There are also third party solutions if Active Directory isn't your bag (we used one at a previous company to manage a large fleet of Windows PC's and servers - its name escapes me at the moment).
Russia's elite hacking unit has been silent, but busy
Not a personal conversation, but I'd (very slightly) prefer that K wasn't a supreme court justice, although I completely support him in this "innocent until proven guilty" quest, and in fact, since the allegations came out, I even support his nomination, because I think people shouldn't suffer any consequences from unproven allegations (because otherwise it's too easy to hurt someone or make their lives miserable), and it's not like he's getting any other job, ever.

But what I find really, extremely sad, is that the majority of the discussion was on this silly inconsequential topic (inconsequential because it's not like there can be any proof of what happened 35 years ago, so it's never getting resolved one way or the other), instead of on his actual leanings, policy, politics, opinions, etc - what kind of Justice he'll be. That's also why I wrote "(very slightly)" above - I'd prefer the court to be as balanced as possible, and K seems to lean right, but I've such low confidence in this belief (e.g. his actual stances could be "libertarian", like Kennedy's, which is IMO preferable while being neither left nor right) that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes, CNN even NYT at this point is clearly partisan.

I say this as neither a Republican or Democrat. Both sides are equally foolish.
Not much to say about Tesla (haven't been following the story), but one thing that I don't get with Snap is why don't they cut their overheads to try and get back in profit, instead of chasing the impossible dream of getting back to Instagram-levels of growth?

It seems like their platform is already built, they have some ways of making money (ads, sponsored filters, etc), so surely the easiest option is to cut overheads and at least make some money, instead of burning the little of it they have left?

Same thing for Twitter. Last time I checked they had thousands of employees; yet the platform is stagnating and getting worse every day. If they can't innovate, it seems wise to at least cut their losses and try to make some profit with whatever they have left.
Traditional "baseload" plants are a product of cost and engineering. Nuclear and baseload coal plants are designed to deliver maximum power for minimum cost. Due to engineering constraints, this means that it's hard to scale the output up or down to meet changes in demand (hours? days?). So short-term demand is dealt with by "peaker" plants, which are very expensive. They're less efficient, and they aren't always in use, which means tying up capital in something you don't always need.

I think of solar/wind as a sort of weird baseload, with a wide variance in output that is not controllable and not always predictable in the short term.

Where I think we have a real opportunity is the application of modern software to this unpredictable power grid, by pricing power dynamically at a rate that matches the fluctuations in both supply and demand. At this point, building storage to stabilize the grid is arbitrage, a market imperative. Independent storage systems can buy power from the grid when it's cheap (sunny, windy days), and sell it when it's expensive (cloudy days with no wind and high demand). Then it's just a numbers game, and the market itself will provide the right amount of storage.

This gets more fun as electric cars become more and more common. Every electric car is just a big battery, right? Plug it into this smart grid, and you can make a few bucks using the same arbitrage as big power companies. Sell the power in your car!
I've thought about this for a while, complete with HOTAS support.
How to Spot Good Fuzzing Research
Magic Leap acquires Computes
Why should a person suffer any consequences because of an unfunded accusation? Do you even realize what kind of slippery slope that is?! People have lost jobs, careers because of accusations that have been proven to be false!
> Does it seem a little odd for the 5 eyes to be weighing in while the us gov is silent?

Chances are, American intelligence has been running counterintelligence operations through this network. That leaves lots of people in American intelligence who would prefer this remain a secret, without a similar restriction elsewhere.
I see. Thank you.

So the question is, are they acting in bad faith if they attempt to use a CLA to subvert the open source license?
> Even as you sit with an extreme-right president and near-state-sanctioned hard-right media, you claim that "Democrats are in control".

The press and Trump are basically at war with one another. I can't see how you can claim they're both hard right. All the mainstream press (aside from Fox) endorsed Clinton.
I mean you could technically go all the way back to the Qin emperor and the Great Wall...
hey thanks for posting! dev here if anyone has any questions about this software or fractals in general. Gregory's work here is really impressive, huge fan. Go fractals!
Crazy how far ahead the iPhone is over every single Android phone. I moved over years ago because of the horrible hardware, lower-quality apps, and lack of support. Seems like this trend will continue.
> I did not say that, nor do I believe it, nor is it really related.

What is the practical difference between contributing under a CLA to a project that's currently under an open-source license and contributing under a non-copyleft open-source license while retaining the copyright yourself? In both cases the project's ability to "go closed source" seems substantially the same, so it seems to me that your arguments against signing a CLA apply equally to contributing to non-GPLed software projects.
"No", it is you who are tacking additional straw man arguments and then being outraged.

By your argument a content slave owner could by proud of his thriving cotton economy, and justifiably believe his political support for this system should have no consequences.

If you know you're supporting people that actively try to suppress the rights of your fellow citizens, how can you complain when you are judged for it?
There's a couple of APIs https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Isochrone#Examples I've only used the https://graphhopper.com/api/1/docs/isochrone/
Oh, sure. There are all sorts of interesting ways to cache energy, besides batteries - hydro, gravity, compressed air, thermal, etc. Price, scale, and local constraints should create a rich market for a wide variety of solutions.

(As an aside, a sufficiently large hydro storage is its own regulatory problem.)
Because even though the product might be from the same supplier, it is not a product of this brand.
There is a big difference.

The customer-expectation of a brand-product is based on the perception, the history and the presence of that brand, a well-crafted association and experience that is funded with the profit of the product.

The private-label product is cutting this funding. It will not finance the supplier-brand and it sets its own expectation and quality-thresholds on the product.
The supplier accepts that and waives his control to get the volume-order and fill production-gaps in its factory.

In this kind of deal there is no direct relationship between the original brand and the private-label product anymore.

Edit, for clarification:
It's not said that the potato-chips will be exactly the same. The minimum requirements of the brands may not match with the minimum-requirements of the private-label, i.e. for the private-label a different grade of potato, oil, salt might be used.
If so it would be cherry-picked, as I'm pretty sure that's not his position.
A classic example is daemonizing a process. While still attached to the terminal you first parse command-line options, read config files, and do some sanity checks. Any errors caught at this point cause an error message and exit(1). Otherwise fork+setsid to detach from the session, then fork again to lose the new session leader.

Apart from that, the only thing I have used fork for (apart from fork+exec) is doing concurrent blocking I/O while prototyping, before rewriting the code to use non-blocking I/O with no forking.
That seems to be the point of the guy I'm replying to, given that he says he "laughs" at the idea of a disappearance. I'm just saying that, while it's quite plausible the government of China is detaining him, it's not outside the realm of possibility they have no idea where he is.
The big question is whether it's your neighbor's turd or your neighbor's dog's turd.

Re: 1, if they investigated it then that means that "it" was something in the first place thus warranting the investigation.

Re: 2, that's the kind of thing you do when you need to inject uncertainty into the situation to buy yourself or your buddies time to tie up loose ends/burn evidence/figure out what story they'll tell the politicians.
Reducing on demand delivery time with activity