skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Couple ideas:

Maybe it doesn't change often, but the developer pool is full of people early in their career who would rather find the next big thing and get in on the ground level than be 3-5 years behind the curve on the existing stuff. And then they tweet all day about it.

Maybe it does change often, because there's such a focus on build tools and developer ergonomics; and doing that in 201X lets you follow the treasure map made by the ppl who already figured it all out for systems programming decades ago. The kids are calling it transpilation and tree-shaking these days. They're writing APIs for GPU access, and assembly code for the bits that need to be really performant.
Of course, but they were made to exist under a set of rules and principles. That doesn't give the Government an excuse to act like a petulant child.
Web development has been the greatest nexus of software innovation for the last two decades, and its influence has transformed the entire landscape around it. It has fundamentally changed data storage (XML, JSON), app integration (embedded Google Maps, share buttons), graphic design (CSS sweeping away embedded images and paving the road to flat design), and much more.

Many of these innovations began as surprising hacks which pushed browsers beyond their limits and created significant problems with security, performance, and visual rendering.

As these hacks became mainstream features, developers took two different approaches to fixing the problems. Some worked on creating front-end libraries which smoothed over the flaws in the browsers, while others worked on the more difficult problem of fixing the browsers themselves.

Front-end Javascript libraries can significantly improve developer productivity and a new, improved framework will see rapid and widespread adoption. However, the slower work of fixing the browsers themselves continues in the background, making those Javascript libraries obsolete and introducing powerful new browser features.

As we speak, there is an incredible array of new features in the latest browsers which are going mostly unused, because most web developers don't want to touch them until that last 5% of older browsers die off. Today, it might look as if a certain web framework is the be-all and end-all of web development, but in reality the groundwork has already been laid for it to be obsoleted and replaced by better, faster, more secure, more productive tools.
Apple failed at the business of mining users private data, its CEO takes a moral stance against it.
LKML: GPL Revocation (GPC-Slots2): Alex “Skud” Bayley, Leigh Honeywell
This will be controversial, but IMO also related is Jan Assmann's work on “monotheism” (a poor term, as what's intended here includes atheism, as polytheists generally understand): the prevailing meme in (especially) Western culture that “the truth to be proclaimed comes with an enemy to be fought” — i.e. too much concern about what is “true” and wariness about people happening to believe in untruth, regardless of their actions. (The fact that this is on the front page of Hacker News is itself evidence.) This leads to certain… problems.
I make a daily effort to point out to elderly people in my family to be extremely aware of the electronic "fishing" for LandMoonDeniers, using "fishing hook/bait" headlines mixed in the middle of "serious/real" headlines, or adds placed by the website or the social media tool, and even spammed chat tool messages bought by the thousands from you know who.

When someone clicks one of this, they know you are easy to braiwash or scam. This is already very old technique , already used before Internet was so widespread, when a pretty girl will make cold calls all day long from some IP telephone call-center installed in Panama or Costa Rica or , in a small operation, in the Cayman Islands, and as she was trained, she could detect a LandMoonDenier in a minute by the phone, and she would set up the Larceny lace around his neck to scam her/his money.

Examples of this baits can be found, for instance, on The Sputinik News, what is very Scary and is a shame, and does't help at all the denial of Russian Interference by russian gov, but actually they don't really want to deny it(because it is not them who is doing this, If it was, they would never let the minimal vestige of evidence that it was them who do it), they know who is working in the shadows to elect , for example, a brainless in brazil, and they know this weird things are not coming from anyone from the U.S. or from the US intel, so they are just having fun playing and letting play, as long as the game is good for them.

:off course, the world's oldest profession is probably not that of the sex trade, or the sex trade was born at the same time that the criminal religious larceny firstly made by the first human who got a curious colored stone and told his tribe that this stone was God and that the village should give him/her good sex and good food,to keep the Priest of the Stone, bearer of the Words and Laws of God, happy, and to keep God happy by extension.
In most (all?) democracies a court of law is a branch of Government. In the USA the judiciary is described as being co-equal to the executive and legislative branches. It's largely the same in the European Union and Westminster-style governments.
> the makefile syntax which was designed specifically for the purpose?

and proven by generations of programmers.

the (very sad) problem here is that for some people makefile is not trendy, it is something first released 42 years ago.
What you describe may well be what is happening, and that is exactly why it is necessary to intervene at this point. By the same argument, if we didn't have safety or environmental standards, manufacturers would be in a race to the bottom in those areas as well. Sometimes you just have to say that a certain behaviour isn't acceptable, for the good of all. If that puts prices up, so be it, but I'm betting that since people managed to make and sell these products at commercially viable levels for many years before all this data grabbing came along, they'll manage just fine if the grabbing gets cut off as well.
MimbleWimble, Beam and Grin: What’s the buzz all about?
Most of my work as a software developer is for the better of humanity - which i'm lucky to do, but straight out of university it was my goal. I started a wee company that delivers stroke, dementia, autism therapies and we'll be branching out to our own products. Interestingly, I had a similar idea drawn up for Hollieguard - looks like I may not have to build it now.

If you're interested in any work, message me.
GoFundMe launches campaign for government workers hit by shutdown
People make tutorials for economic reasons, those reasons are not always 100% aligned with the need to help you learn.

Making the tutorial increases their profile, leading to more profitable opportunities elsewhere (because making the tutorial is not as financially remunerative as actually being employed/consulting somewhere).

Furthermore if you make a tutorial as an advertisement for your skills you want to make it as quickly as possible and show off skills that an employer will appreciate. Probably the quickest way to do something, or to decrease the cost of doing it is to work on something you want to make anyway or to adapt something you already made for a client/project. OF course the easiest way is for people to just go ahead and take the official documentation examples and tweak them a bit and now we have a new tutorial showing you how it is done and we have also managed to improve our profile! Everybody wins, only you don't win as much as the tutorial writer.

Because you want to show off skills to the employer you might also have to consider what the skills you think make you bankable - especially if you have a plan as to where you're going. So even though your GraphQl tutorial might not need much on the frontend you may want to throw React/Redux in there because

1. you're good at React/Redux so gotta show that off
2. more code looks more impressive to a lot of people.

Finally, When you make a tutorial on GraphQl you will need to have some sort of backend, frontend etc. so you have to choose something, probably you decide to put those together based on what your skills are, based on what you have that you've worked on that can be adapted to tutorial purposes, and a number of other factors.

At any rate there is not much economic incentive for most people who make tutorials to make the best tutorial for educational purposes that they can make, unless it is their plan to be educators in the future.
> "Honestly, none of the real value was in any of the web apps. The value was in the backend logic (if there was any significant business logic at all) and more so in data and real system design, balancing between function, redundancy, resiliency, extensibility, and some notion of scalability depending on who the customer was and what expected or unexpected scenarios could arise and how our systems would behave."

These are all responsibilities on the frontend as well... Website =/= Webapp. It almost seems that a lot of backend developers are not making this distinction nowadays, even though SPAs are already out there for years.

In the frontend there is the ever-responsive UI workload, the option for web workers, and service workers are on the rise. To keep your state there are JavaScript objects, web storage (session- and localstorage) and IndexedDB. WebGL anyone...? Newly developed JavaScript should sometimes work in the browser as well as in Node.js. I am solely mentioning technology here, not any implementation - this is thanks to the frontend of the web, as sandboxed app platform (and JavaScript), being so versatile. Next to the system design of the app there is also the gap to its UI/UX design to fill. ...All should work reliable on devices with very limited resources, as there is no option to scale on the client side.

"How to reach offline functionality?" Is a question with all of the complexity belonging to the frontend. Whereas the frontend is the data's real-time interaction, the backend becomes more the reliable async distribution of data. I'm sorry, but frontend app development is everything except from boring for me.
Timeliner: All your digital life on a single timeline, stored locally
Some of the best caviar in the world is from China (2017)
The usb backup backup really, really cannot be at the same site. I'm not saying you have to stick it in the cloud but it's got to physically somewhere else.
I don't see why anyone considers compilation time.

Your code will be compiled only once for your customers, yet run millions of times. Clearly runtime is millions of times more important than compilation time.

If compilation is taking too long, start compiling in the cloud.
If little game can revoke, so can the gratis linux kernel contributors who are not merely being "cucked by GF", but are being infact CoC'd aswell.
They provided an independent source of information. You say it should have been easy yet nobody has been able to articulate exactly what they should have done. It's not like the lawyers were being lazy; the information they did supply was quite detailed and would have taken substantial effort to collate.
Actually sony compacts were some of the phones I was considering when I upgraded from iphone 4, to iphone SE. But the iphone se was just a tad smaller and I liked the look and feel of it. Had there been no iphone SE i would most likely be an android user now. And if apple stops producing a small model like iphone SE, that will probably be the thing that pushes me towards some sort of android phone.
Yes it is revocable by the copyright holders.. The groklaw article is wrong and was published by a ParaLegal (I am a lawyer for comparison) who was confused because she read a guide regarding commercial copyright licensing contracts. The copyleft article is wrong and was "updated" only when I raised the issue. I refuted it 5 hours after publication.

A gratuitous (free) license, not coupled with an interest (you didn't pay for it), is revocable by the owner. That is the rule. You can cite random interested websites all you want, or you can take it from a lawyer. You will notice their "strategy" is to simply throw themselves on the mercy of the court and beg them not to enforce the owners legal rights.

Quick rundown:
Section 4 of the GPLv2 states "parties who have received..."
The "you" here is the licensee, it is not the grantor (See Section 0 of the GPLv2 "Each licensee is addressed as "you". "). It is not applicable against the grantor of the license: it is a rule the licensee has to abide by, set by the grantor, in-order to have permission to modify or create derivative works at all.

About the printer driver case: The contract in that case is the preliminary writing, the offer to do business ("pay us, or alternatively follow the GPL"). The acceptance of that contract by following the terms of that preliminary writing (choosing the GPL instead of paying). That is why both contract and damages under copyright are available. Damages for the contract portion ("pay us"), or damages for violating the GPL license.

The parties later settled out of court. The key is that the businesses offer created two alternative means of acceptance of it's offer to do business: pay for the commercial license, or follow the GPL. So the court allowed the biz to recover the lost profit.
Most debuggers have conditional breakpoints and print-breakpoints, no need to step through line by line manually. If something strange happens just right-click and insert a print as the program is running.

With print-debugging if you find a bug you have to stop your app, insert print lines, recompile, redeploy, relaunch, click through your app to reach buggy location and then scan through log. This really feels like stone-age once you've ever used a IDE.
Well, about that...

https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/

It's a smart move really. Netflix saves bandwidth and ISPs save transit capacity.

Might also be the reason Netflix is so good at detecting if you're connecting from a "residential" IP block.
>The GPL does not contain any revokability clause.
It does not have to. In the _USA_ if you paid for a commercial software license contract, then if there is a revokability clause, that clause is governing. Because you paid for it to be so.

Here there was no contract, no payment, nothing. The code was just put out there, under certain permissions, WHICH CAN BE WITHDRAWN AT WILL. (Same with linux). It's a bare license.

>I't already been tried, and the guy who attempted a shakedown based on their kernel contributions failed hard. https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-beats-internal-legal-thr...

No it did not. He has already made 2 million euros. He chose to withdraw that single case. It doesn't mean he didn't have a case, it means he didn't want to waste the money fighting that particular adversary in the court and the appeals.
Also that is a case from Europe, you moron, not from the US.

>IBM and Red Hat have armies of legal IP experts, I don't think they are losing one iota of sleep.
Which is why Red Hat sold itself to IBM soon after the revocability debate started up (again) after the CoC.
Also the SFConservancy's post was written by one of Red Hat's lawyers, which I immediately debunked 5 hours after it was published.

Quick rundown:
Section 4 of the GPLv2 states "parties who have received..."
The "you" here is the licensee, it is not the grantor (See Section 0 of the GPLv2 "Each licensee is addressed as "you". "). It is not applicable against the grantor of the license: it is a rule the licensee has to abide by, set by the grantor, in-order to have permission to modify or create derivative works at all.

About the printer driver case: The contract in that case is the preliminary writing, the offer to do business ("pay us, or alternatively follow the GPL"). The acceptance of that contract by following the terms of that preliminary writing (choosing the GPL instead of paying). That is why both contract and damages under copyright are available. Damages for the contract portion ("pay us"), or damages for violating the GPL license.

The parties later settled out of court. The key is that the businesses offer created two alternative means of acceptance of it's offer to do business: pay for the commercial license, or follow the GPL.
That trend of “let’s just connect it to WiFi” is really annoying. Yet another device that requires access to WiFi, will probably not receive any patches at all and become obsolete once a new WiFi standard emerges. It would be nice as an optional sync option, but I avoid anything that requires network or access to a vendors cloud unless it’s really necessary for the devices intended operation.
There's basically 2 costs to running a network, buying routers/switches/laying cable, and electricity.

The only thing that matters is peak usage because then you have to buy faster network equipment. If I buy 100MBit internet from my ISP, they basically need to spend, once, whatever 100Mbit of a port looks like, 1/10th of a gigabit port, 1/100th of a 10G port etc. They only have to do that once, yet I pay them every month, they're fine.
Single-seat support used to be available for Ubuntu. I paid for that in roughly the 2010-2012 time frame.

It was useless, and I don't really blame Canonical: Consider how much of a competent person's time the annual price back then, 190 euros, could buy. Not much.

If you want to support them monetarily, the donation thing covers that. If you want to pay for them to provide support for you, what do you expect "support" to mean and at what cost? The trope that if you pay for Open Source support, you get to affect bug fixing priorities doesn't work at the money levels that individuals (except maybe ones who have the kind of money Shuttleworth has) are willing to pay.

But even for just advice on how to perform a task or resolve a problem, if you can't get the answer right away using a Web search engine, chances are that the solution needs a competent person to pay attention for a longer period of time than your expected annual per-seat price pays for.
David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School.

-----
"Termination of rights

[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.

[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.

The Free Software Foundations GPL FAQ disagrees with the conclusion I reach here. The FAQ asks rhetorically can a developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use and answers No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn. 89 Similarly, Lawrence Rosen, general counsel to the Open Source Initiative, has stated (in an FAQ on the SCO/IBM case) that Linux is available free, forever. Neither statement addresses the issue I raise here; I am not aware of the legal basis for either statement. I read them as understandable efforts to keep community members from over-reacting to low-probability risks. That may be sensible real-world pragmatism, a question I leave to the entrepreneurs. As a strictly legal matter, however, these comforting statements are too strong.[...]

What would happen if an author terminated GPL rights? If a single rights-holder held all the rights in the program, then termination would stop future F/OSS development of that program; users would no longer have the right to distribute modified versions of the code, or even unmodified copies of the versions they had."
>>1019960
Those "updates" are because _I_ raised the issue. They are bullshit. Read them, weasel words all over the place, the actual "paper" doesn't really say anything. Pamela Chestek is a lawyer on loan from Red Hat, because the SFConservancy apparently doesn't have any of it's own (the guy has always ran it, BKuhn is not a lawyer and is instead a baby-faced "technologist" who complains women aren't respected enough, recently they hired a lawyer who they had to put in as the chairwoman (and demote BKuhn) because a lawyer cannot be under a non-lawyer according to Bar rules).

Their whole argument is to misconstrue a clause in the GPLv2 as if they were a promise not to revoke by the grantor (it is not: it is an explanation of what happens to a downstream licensee's permission if an _upstream_ licensee loses his license). They then misconstrue it again as if it was operative against the grantor, when the GPLv2 explicitly defines "you" as the licensee (NOT the grantor). Then they talk about a case where a biz created a contract that allowed an offeree the option to accept the contract by paying for a commercial license or going with the GPL. Distinguishable from when the GPL stands alone as a bare license with no offer to do business attached.

Quick rundown:
Section 4 of the GPLv2 states "parties who have received..."
The "you" here is the licensee, it is not the grantor (See Section 0 of the GPLv2 "Each licensee is addressed as "you". "). It is not applicable against the grantor of the license: it is a rule the licensee has to abide by, set by the grantor, in-order to have permission to modify or create derivative works at all.

About the printer driver case: The contract in that case is the preliminary writing, the offer to do business ("pay us, or alternatively follow the GPL"). The acceptance of that contract by following the terms of that preliminary writing (choosing the GPL instead of paying). That is why both contract and damages under copyright are available. Damages for the contract portion ("pay us"), or damages for violating the GPL license.

The parties later settled out of court. The key is that the businesses offer created two alternative means of acceptance of it's offer to do business: pay for the commercial license, or follow the GPL.
PJ was and is a paralegal. She doesn't know what the fuck she is talking about (same with you). She's reading from "Copyright Litigation Handbook" on westlaw. She reads about the irrevocability of commercial copyright license contracts. The reason those are non-revocable outside of the terms is because ///THEY WERE PAID FOR///. You BOUGHT the terms. You BOUGHT the "this is the way we revoke the license" term. That is what you are purchasing. Security.

Nice source though. I cite the man who wrote the /book/ on opensource litigation, who you can look up and is a lawyer (since you won't believe me), and you cite some paralegal who immediately stopped talking once she was outed (because she was wrong and perhaps using company time to run up bills on westlaw).

--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------

Again, citing an article from a rag that cites PJ the paralegal.
( Try this instead:
https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intell... )
I stopped considering my iPhone SE a “small phone” and I started considering it for what it actually is: a “just right” phone.

Ergonomically speaking, 4 inches is the right size for a device that is meant to be operated by a human hand. Phones bigger that that are grossly oversized and anti-ergonomic.

That’s just common sense (cit. Apple): https://youtu.be/O99m7lebirE
I noticed that some pictures show the suffixe "ish" right at the bottom right corner (I think it's a clever trick; wonder if it's boring to basically always see that word lit up since it's less likely that a time is round)
That's right, but here we're talking about the trademark for Big Mac. I'm pretty sure they're using that one.
Oracle also has serious quality issues. The last patch set I applied had the wrong binaries for Oracle Text. With what they charge, you wouldn't expect that. I've never had such a thing happen with my Postgresql instances. I just don't see how to justify starting out with Oracle today.