skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Me too. My understanding is the minute Allen overheard that, he walked out of the Microsoft office and never went back. Hence why whenever you heard about him, it was from his yacht. I bet Gates and Ballmer have remembered that every day for 40 years.
If you walk on public street

No, this is not public property, it's if you walk on private property. Ring cams are placed on private property and are targeted at homeowners. They usually don't record or activate outside of a range of 30 feet or so. So if someone drives by my house the ring cam doesn't capture it but if someone walks by my door it does.
Among the many other problems with your proposal, you are assuming an editor that can only insert and delete characters, so no selection, copy, paste, search and replace, and any other features that involve modifying more than just one character in a document at a time, since you're critically depending not just on the fact that all edits can theoretically be represented by single character changes but that the rate of such changes must necessarily be very, very low, bounded by human typing speed.

"OK, so to fix that, I'll just..."

That'll break in some other case. If you then work on fixing that up, in another 20 or 30 steps, you end up at these algorithms. Or something far worse, which is actually pretty likely if you try to bodge something together one hyper-local problem at a time.
The license you describe, while definitely useful, is not open source by any meaningful definition of the concept. I don't mean "not OSI open source", but "not open source as the term has evolved". Similar licenses have been tried (see Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative) and you can definitely devise one yourself and no-one can stop you.

The "world" won't let you call your license open source for good reason: it's not open source.
This is how body-shops make the big bucks: squeeze production prices down so you can carve more profit.

The alternative, I believe, is to find niches with higher margins or that scale better (white-label products, saas, and so on). Facebook makes $640k for each worker they employ, and they certainly don’t skimp on salaries.
Nonfiction: The Man Who Pioneered Food Safety
Is there a detailed account of this somewhere? I'd like to read more about it.
I should have said "human life". A world that is no longer suitable for mammals but is suitable for microbes falls under the category of "things that scare me".
Yes, I understood that, I assume the OP meant that he is an authority on "open-source" in that "free software" was the original "open-source" and thus "open-source" has RMS a lot to thank for. Otherwise I agree.
Here's the link to the paper discussing tree-based CRDT: https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1784. I personally find those papers very interesting!
Tech Lead of Google Registry ( https://registry.google ) here. We run on GCP.

You definitely don't want to check secrets into the repo for the same reason you don't set them as environment variables: It's not secure. The solution is to use Cloud Key Management Service. More info here: https://cloud.google.com/kms/ We use that to either store secrets directly, or to decrypt encrypted entities in a DB (e.g. Datastore).

You can see how we use it here (our project is open source): https://github.com/google/nomulus/tree/master/java/google/re...
Haha, I was a consultant and you paint a very idealistic picture of the situation. It usually went something like this in my experience:

1. Partner hears client is interested in a certain type of engagement

2. Partner promises that their firm has extensive expertise in the area

3. Partner commits to writing a proposal for the potential project

4. Lower level staff scramble to talk to other consultants in their firm (same industry) and dig through old case studies to figure out if #2 is actually true

5. Staff hurriedly compiles a proposal deck from a mish-mash of slides from other projects that are mildly relevant

6. Multiple iterative feedback loops where the partner gives vague suggestions on improvements and staff makes the changes

7. Send finalized proposal to design/production team

If you win the proposal, you use some lead time before the project to build an approach using past projects. In rare cases there would be a firm-sponsored template or framework (often when there is associated whitepapers or other marketing materials), but in general the situation was a more reactive "I do not have time to start this from scratch, so what can I gather from past projects?" and less of a proactive "let's build a template to reuse for new projects"
It's been a big help to me in both understanding what freedoms I have as a consumer of software, as well as providing me with thoroughly vetted, top-quality licenses to work with when I'm trying to give freedoms to the people who consume my software. OSI is incredibly useful, and have probably saved me needing to consult with a lawyer at least couple of times already. Now spread that benefit across an entire industry to get an idea the amount of value they provide!
Then Op should not say in all caps, "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE".
Restrictions boost creativity.
> They usually don't record or activate outside of a range of 30 feet or so.

30 feet is often more than the distance from the front door to a sidewalk, and often well into the actual street.
You lost me at preloaded.
> Shouldn't Google be able to specify the terms of use for its closed-source products? It seems sane that those terms might specify a package deal with other products.

Not to the extent that it is allowed to decimate competition.

Related: When IBM was trying to find software for the IBM-PC they went to Microsoft initially looking to buy just the languages (like BASIC) to run on it. They wound up buying DOS for pennies on the dollar because Microsoft valued contractual freedom to deal with other businesses over instant bottom-line. IBM low-balled Microsoft expecting them to come back higher, but instead they accepted on the condition that they be allowed to sell their OS to other vendors.

The result was nearly 40 years of market domination because for years nobody could decouple Microsoft Windows from the PC. Even after it slipped out of IBMs grasp; Microsoft held on. Microsoft commoditized the hardware and then strong-armed everyone into license agreements because they had unstoppable market share. It was almost a case of "Give them the razor for free but make them keep coming back for blades." Microsoft could, quite literally, give away their code for free without fear of financial loss because every PC running Windows was infinitely more valuable than that same PC running anything else. By running Windows instead, even a free one, Microsoft was strengthening it's market share.

With Android and mobile devices the hardware is already a commodity. Google has all the market share it needs. They don't need more reward for something that's already been paid off if it just means the rest of the market is limited in their ability to do business outside of Google. The entire market doesn't need to support Google on both sides. We're paying Google in data, in market share, and in advertising revenue. Bending Samsung's arm backwards to install the whole kit just breaks competition. It's triple dipping for Google to the detriment of the rest of us. For what? Just so Google can make sure they're the only Google forever?

They're licensing practices are disingenuous and anti-competitive for the sake of limiting advancement that could threaten Google's bottom line. That potential advancement would be a huge benefit for the rest of the world, but we may never see it if Google is allowed to completely own the tech sector in every conceivable way.
Well “alleged” is the right term but obviously there is a difference between crowdsourcing video in an attempt to find the individual(s) who placed the bombs at the Boston marathon and footlockers cctv video of two men attempting to make purchases using my credit card/debit card.

Never mind the story you linked, because I don’t think it is directly applicable to these facts, but what makes releasing such video of men using my stolen credit/debit cards a bad idea?
True, but not fair, to Gates OR to Allen. "After a few years all that passes. Bill and I have always been friends, even through the ups and downs" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/may/02/paul-alle...
In case anyone wants to read more, it was my first time hearing about this too, I found a good resource here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/03/30/bill-...
There are stories, articles and biographies about it all from over the years but here is one mention of it:

"In December 1982, when Allen was sick with cancer, he overheard Gates and Ballmer discussing his lack of contributions and how to dilute his equity by offering stock options to other employees and shareholders. Allen confronted them and quit a little bit later. " [1]

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/what-paul-allen-really-think...
Am I wrong to be frustrated with the way this is phrased. I think something to the effect of, "Lack of exercise pollutes brain and promotes degeneration." is more informative of the finding.

Similar to "Time in nature heals you"...
My personal idea is that you shouldn't open source anything you plan to make money from. Technologies that you build along the way (like React out of Facebook and a million other examples) are good candidates for open source.

Open source db software is suitable for these dual licenses - using it is free, but if you are going to sell products and services that are repackaged versions of the tool, you should pay the creator (like mysql).
I don't think that's true. At least, not if you revert something - it reverts only the changes introduced in that commit. (That there is confusion - or even discussion possible - is exactly my point: the abstraction is leaky at worst, and confusing at best).

Edit: You're right, but my point was that the revert command treats a commit like a set of changes, not like the state of of a repo (since you can't revert the state of a repo, but you can revert changes).
I don’t know the exact specifics, but the notion of co-founder vesting schedules exist today. This provides a simpler pre-agreed upon way to handle that kind of situation. If I recall correctly Micro-Soft wasn’t even a properly incorporated entity for the DOS deal making things like a founder needing to stop having an execution role for health reasons hard to deal with.
RMS has an ideal: All software should be free and open.

This doesn't work for businesses that need to profit from what they do. Keeping things proprietary, while benefiting from source-available software is impossible if a company has to release their source. Competition goes out the window.

So while RMS has a nice ideal, it doesn't generally apply.
What I found: https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/03/30/bill-...
My first job was in a library (shelving books), and I gained a huge appreciation for what they do and what they offer. I suspect a lot of people don't even realize what a good library system makes possible.

In my town, our library buys upwards of 25 copies of major new movies, it might not be available as quickly as Redbox when the demand is high, but it's free. Our libraries have 3D printers that residents can use, and even workspaces intended for startups to be able to work on launching their business from. A huge perk is that any resident can use these resources, regardless of income level, libraries are a huge balancing factor for people who can't afford to buy their own movies and books.

There's access to online rental/streaming of books, music, movies, comics, etc. They even have a program which gets you discounts in various local stores and restaurants from presenting your library card.

As you said, libraries have always been on the forefront of privacy, I recall many a time hearing about how checkout history simply wasn't kept, and how hard libraries fought to avoid disclosing to law enforcement even what materials people currently had checked out. I think their site now does have a feature where you can track history, because it was a really common patron request, but it's distinctly opt-in, you have to want it and actually go in and enable it yourself.
> there is no functionality for manipulating code at run-time or interpretation-time

Sure there is: http://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?section=manipterm

Example:

?- foo(Bar, Baz) =.. List.
List = [foo, Bar, Baz].

And:

?- F =.. [foo, Bar, Baz].
F = foo(Bar, Baz).
They truly are magnificent structures. The popular image of the oil industry is one of roughnecks around ugly old drilling equipment next to a hole in the ground.

The size and scale of the engineering challenge, especially of deep water drilling, are incredible. I wish more people could be exposed to the marvels of engineering in the O&G industry.
"access to Google Play is $10, but if you bundle our services, we'll give you $10!"

is unlikely to be different from "free" in the eyes of regulators. But it does clarify what particularly is the concern the regulators are interested in -- how much of discount is implied in the servicde-bundle placement.
So was Amazon.
Split between drivers, this is $750,000/driver.

I get that Uber has a massive footprint, but given that they've never turned a profit in their entire company history, I don't understand how they can be worth this much...
My belief is: Amazon/Google (and to a lesser extent, Azure) capture a tremendous amount of revenue by coupling known OSS infrastructure with a hosted cloud business. This is because they've been able to extend unrelated monopolies

What you're saying is (I think): Google contributes code + projects back to the OSS community and sponsors OSS organizations.

I think if we could see the actual numbers — if it were possible to see Google's cloud revenue with associated OSS contributions — we'd see that what they're actually giving "back" is tiny, and it's the equivalent of donating to charities.

Since we don't know how many people actually work on OSS at Google, we can maybe use this estimate: https://twitter.com/mjasay/status/960563592683667456

Assuming Google pays ~$250k salaries to all of those folks to work full time on other peoples' projects, they're spending about $500mm/year on OSS while making ~$2bn/yr on just Google cloud. And that's horribly optimistic, I doubt much of that money is going to projects Google doesn't control.

Google's original OSS projects are different, I tend to like them. But given Google's market power the actual effect is to commoditize all the things Google doesn't expect to make money on. Kubernetes is great. Mesosphere is increasingly irrelevant because of it. OSS projects from megacorps tend to have the same effect as price dumping. They can afford to spend more money making something an non-viable business than most companies can spend at all.
I didn't say if it was fair or unfair, it's always the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of Bill Gates and Paul Allen. Similiar to Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs and the Breakout game incident.
In a funny way, I actually don't think ownership of the term, or even who gets to decide that, is what really matters. Mongo can release their software under a license they term "open source", or "special mongo license", or "license X" -- they're under no obligation to use any commonly-accepted licenses or terms. They are certainly free to call themselves "open source" under any new license, and make their arguments as to why they believe that term applies.

However, what really matters here is whether, if they choose to do that, developers would still be willing to freely contribute to Mongo's code base, and whether companies who use open source software will continue to use their product. Because _that's_ the reason Mongo cares about being "open source". If most developers and organizations recognize the OSI, with their license approval process, as the arbiters of what constitutes an open source license, then that's the reason the OSI's opinion here really counts. Not because they have some divine right to that term, but simply because if they say "after review, we don't consider this project to be open source by our definition of open source", developers and organizations may hesitate to contribute to, or use, this project.
As you describe it, it is the same style, but the market fraction is a lower number.
I think employees at companies that are backed by Saudi Arabia (via Saudi's Public Investment Fund or indirectly via Softbank's Vision Fund) should feel empowered to push back against upper management and ask them to refuse further investment (easy) and/or work with other investors to buy out Saudi's share (hard).

If you work at a company that's backed by Saudi Arabia, the proceeds of your work are funneling up into the hands of an increasingly autocratic and persistently repressive government. You have the power to do something about it.

Disclosure: I work at Lyft, which has among its investors Al-Waleed bin Talal. Al-Waleed bin Talal is a member of the Saudi royal family but (apparently) does not have much influence in the current regime.
Google seems to take this to an extreme with a number of messaging clients competing all the time.
I have proof it works, but there’s no room?
https://wallabag.org covers your complaints with pocket and also has an API.
It might be the original "open source" but it ISN'T open source, per the definition. Open Source was coined for software LONG AFTER the FSF had declared what free software meant.

Going back and saying "Well, RMS might have MEANT open source, so it's actually the original open source" is very subjective and not historically accurate.
ah yes. I found those just add a lot of cognitive load to no benefit. By the time I've read "thanks!", "Yes", "How about tomorrow?" I could have just typed a response. Maybe it's just me but I basically never replay to an email with such terse responses as the options provided in Gmail.
Does this new classic+ environment now supersede the Flex environment?

I’m curious because now it’s seems like there are 3 solutions. Although I really like the simplicity of this solution and the modernizing from the constraints of true classic mode.
> For me it's actually the definition of open source, having the sources in the open.

But that's not actually the most commonly accepted definition of open source. It means something else, as widely understood by the software community.
LOL CITES VOX AS A SOURCE.

Enjoy your bubble!

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vox-media#section-in...
I am proud to say that after 20 years, I am still using Winamp on my PC.
What is the correct way of creating a one-to-one relationship?
I feel as though ennui/depression is often symptomatic of loneliness, health and lacking in sunshine, that sort of thing. Speaking for myself of course. I've had it follow me a long time, but for all my problems now, depression doesn't rank among them. I still get bored, but don't hate myself for it.
The police serve the state, whose interests may or may not coincide with the individual citizen; they don't exist to make you whole when you've lost something to wrongful acts, though they may sometimes help with that incidentally; that's primarily the role of the civil courts and private litigation.
> The OSI only concerns itself with defining open source and publishing a list of open source licenses. The FSF unquestionably concerns itself with much more.

The FSF concerns itself with defining/defending free software, same as OSI does for open-source.
If FSF "concerns itself with much more", I assume you would not have a problem listing some of these things.

> No, this is what open source stands for. If you don't want to write open source software, then don't. That's your choice. But the right to do exactly this is protected by both the OSI and the FSF, and I doubt you can find another authority which disagrees.

The difference here is that the OSI was historically created as a response to FSF for this exact purpose, whereas the FSF was primarily created to defend copyleft, later adopting some non-copyleft licenses as well, so the exact reverse of what OSI did.
Lyft Pushes Subscription Service for the Monthly Price of a New Car
That's putting boredom on a bipolar scale -- "manic" euphoric boredom, and "depressive" dysphoric boredom.
Boeing 757 Landing Gear Retraction and Extension Test [video]
> The "world" won't let you call your license open source for good reason

What is that good reason?

Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? How is my "View and Internal Use License" bad for the open source ecosystem?
I have great fears that the economy over the next 10 years of my life will be stagnation.

The Chinese debt is something the world has known, to continue to accept the debt is the risk for the taker.

The worry is that this will ruin companies and the employees that work for them. It should be obvious how this cascades and affects the common person.

I also have concerns about the US economy given our comfort level with the growing debt.
When I read this I literally hear the music :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgztPP_CWNQ
Previous discussion:
https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Remembering-Paul...
Hypertension? How is that relevant??

Glucose is absolutely sugar. Fructose and glucose are both simple sugars (table sugar is sucrose, a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose).

The starch in wheat is made up of long chains of glucose, which again, is a sugar. It sometimes has added sugar as well. Both those facts are true for both white and wheat bread.

RE: France, are you kidding me? French people do get fat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_France
Ruby-ish pseudo code is somewhat remote from working Forth.
This would make it so much easier for the neighborhood nosybody to report dark people walking around in a light people neighborhood. See something racial; say something racist.

The television commercials for Ring are ridiculous. They act like it's a magical talisman against criminals, who scuttle away like cockroaches under its wary gaze.
That makes Wire an especially hard sell, since it risks not just going away, but also being converted to something more nefarious.

> Signal's funding is only a recent event, and one could ask how long that would last too, since Signal doesn't even have a paid service.

Recency doesn't make a difference for users considering joining it now (only for why they may not have joined previously). $50M should be plenty to run a service for, say, 10 years, assuming they don't hire a huge number of employees.

As Wikimedia has demonstrated, a paid service isn't required to survive long-term. Certainly, users (and maybe companies) would be willing to donate to a non-profit foundation, whereas doing so to a for-profit company like Wire seems implausible.

Especially in the context of the OP article, the source of the funding of the app and service is pertty important, as it informs the motives, and for-profit motives generally seem to have been, historically, not in the best interests of the users.
> This will be an accelerating trend in open source

Until communities refuse to sign CLA that let projects bait-and-switch to another license once they have a large community and want to now take buckets of VC money.
>> Why is there so much "whataboutism" whenever anyone brings up these issues?

It's not just these types of threads either. Any thread that has Apple, Microsoft, Google, or pretty much everything eventually devolves into these types of threads.

It used to bother me a lot more than it does now, because I just accepted that once I hit the inevitable whatabout post I just go do something else. Its a good sign that there's nothing left in the thread.