skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Presumably this uses a SIM card, where Toyota is paying a network provider for connectivity. So... it seems reasonable to ask for a subscription payment?

Although, I think making a key fob with a SIM card makes it unnecessary complicated, I wonder if on the fob side it's Bluetooth instead, and requires a smartphone with connectivity, plus a Toyota app.

I guess it'd be better for them to add the x years' (x = average car's lifetime) worth of SIM subscription fee to the base price of the car, to stop this complaining.
Woman with signal blocked-TV loses appeal contesting her obligation to pay NHK
Sweet, thanks for sharing! I'll definitely take a look.
How do other kinds of software companies with large marketing spend deal with it? Hint: Often not with death march crunch time.
Without coffee making experience you'd be lucky to get a toilet cleaning job at Starbucks.
Using Java 8 doesn’t mean you have to use 8_51 or whatever - you can use 8_300+ or whatever the current is.
There's really no way to say that with the limited amount of info in the post. There can be two legit businesses in the same space with similar names. This is incredibly common in tech.
I'm not sure I fully agree. Doing open source doesn't mean you do it well. You have no sense of how quickly, efficiently and independently they managed to achieve it. I'd much rather hear from prior experience, and probe about situations and scenarios they were in, projects and problems they contributed too, and hear the story of how they went about it, how long it took them, what they did in the face of setbacks and pressure, etc.

I have seen first hand developer that are just okay or below average successfully deliver on open source, because you have infinite time, no constraints, no stress and get to choose exactly what you do or contribute. But in a work environment they struggle, given ambiguous problems they struggle, given time constraints they struggle, given changing needs and demands they struggle, working within a team they struggle, given something outside their area of knowledge they struggle, etc.
Show HN: Grand Unified Divisibility Rule: One divisibility rule for all numbers
Even though these are "fees" or "loans", the purpose is speculation. The whole web of connections in the flow of the money is rooted by people speculating to make money.

These aren't loans that are made to acquire some intrinsic value, like buying a house, investing into growing a business and so on. People use this liquidity or take crypto loans to try to make more money elsewhere in crypto.

Is that right? Is there a tie to the real world in there?

To me, this appears quite unsustainable and prone to failure if a risk off event comes. How would crypto have performed during the GFC? It's fallen 80% before even in times where economy has been perfectly fine. The whole ecosystem is ripe to implode due to 0 intrinsic value to owning the tokens that would otherwise cushion a fall in value.

Even in a severe recession, cashflowing businesses have value, rental properties have value. Crypto has none that I can tell.
> This is false. Free software is given away by those who produce it. When you receive a gift, no moral or ethical obligation is created.

The ethical obligation is to your own users: you should be making a reasonable good-faith effort to ensure that your software's dependency projects are healthy as a transitive consequence of ensuring the health of your own software project. This has nothing to do with the ethics of accepting a gift, and everything with professional ethics (which raises the debate of whether writing software should be a profession).

Arguably, the dependency projects also have a similar obligation, or at least the obligation to make the health status of their project explicit.
IMO, I think the golden age of completely FOSS apps (no open core) is ending/has ended as users expect more features and apps struggle to meet demands without effective monetization. I think open source will always have a place for libraries and tools, but end user applications will either become open core or no longer open source.
Facebook Whistleblower Reveals Censorship Guidelines for Moderators
I love the feel of a set of Technics 1200 mk2s. They’re just magic.

I have still have my set of 1210s (same design but gun metal colour instead of silver) from 1996. I gigged them pretty hard, schlepping them to a couple of regular bar gigs 2 or 3 nights a week for about 5 years.

They still play just like new today, 25 years later. I’ve never even replaced the cue lights.

They just got the design right. The right amount of torque, a good arm and really reliable.

For comparison I also have a wonderful Technics SP10 I got from a old radio station and a Rega Planar 2.

They’re both great hifi decks but a different kind of animal.
There are already strategies for monetizing OSS, like selling GPL exceptions or support, but it's up to the individual developer to figure this out. The OSS ecosystem could do more to encourage monetization. For instance, GitHub could add a "buy" button with payment processor for maintainers to easily sell closed source licenses. Package managers could include payment options too. It's not just about payment either, but they could also offer prewritten contracts and other legal templates for maintainers. I can easily envision a world where maintainers are properly funded. I suspect, however, that enterprising forces would prefer OSS remain charity work.
Corvids are among the most capable problem solvers in the animal kingdom. Ravens are known to have copied complex sequences of actions, and not just in a rote fashion, but understanding what was being done (ie empathetically) and adjusting their own behaviour when conditions were changed.
Next time I'll skip posting a tragedy. :P
You might like this channel called Nomadic Ambience: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqRTj-Nu_8to3jIBlXptOtA
The End of a Return-to-Office Date
I'm not familiar, but can see how different things like that might be thumbing one's nose. There have been coups started over such things in Latin America in just the last couple of years. I'm totally unconvinced that El Salvador is a similar situation.
I would be fascinated to see your evidence that in-house code is any better on average than open-source code.

I haven't done a lot of consulting lately, so I haven't seen much in-house code in the last few years. But my experience is that the average in-house codebase is worse. And that makes sense from the incentives. Open-source projects that want more than one contributor need to be approachable enough that people join in. Whereas with most in-house code, people commit to working on it without ever seeing it. Switching to work on another open-source project is easy; switching to another job is hard. Open-source authors get to decide when to release; in-house code is generally driven by execs. And so on.
Even Chernobyl isn’t that dangerous. The background radiation in the exclusion zone is lower than in Finland. No additional cancer has been found among nearby villages, the number of cigarettes consumed there is a far greater danger.

Moreover a Chernobyl like accident couldn’t happen again. Outside of the USSR no one was building graphite pile reactors after maybe 1955, and no reactors without containment buildings.
In strictly economic terms, it rarely makes sense for all but the largest users of some upstream project, putting that proposition squarely in tragedy-of-the-commons territory: it’s better to hope for others to support it.

That applies even to existing sponsorships, however. Their existence thus points at more than cold-blooded short-term business interests being at play here. While corporations are in theory seeking only shareholder value, corporations happen to be (made up of) people, who are capable of altruism, and should be encouraged to use it. Just because US capitalism has managed to build a not-entirely-failing system on unadulterated selfishness does not turn that mindset into a virtue, or even reality: as far as I can tell, the dominant reason for sponsorship is that some person with a bit of authority likes the idea.

They may consider it good for marketing, or recruitment, or to secure their supply chain, or just morally called for, or they want to be the fat cat at this years TINYTEC-CON. If you asked them, they’ll give you a reason that totally makes sense for a business and has little to do with reality. And, no, nobody ever got sued or fired for these decisions. So go ahead, do it! You got all the left-padding you needed, it’s right to pad their wallet in return.

(recycled from earlier comment on the topic)
There should be an umbrella company that takes ownership of a large number of major projects, charges a single licensing fee and grants access to all of them or none of them. It should remain free to amateurs and should be free or cheaper for small businesses.
Right. Mostly they wouldn't even pay employees if they could get away with it. We have to make laws about it.
Thanks! I definitely tried to focus on only using as much abstraction as was actually helpful in getting it to work the way I wanted it to.
A stitch in time saves nine, but doesn't do anything for those whose garments have already unraveled.

But it's still very important to exercise prevention.
I didn't see anything in the article about them using SpaceX to launch. Perhaps I missed it.
This is fun idea. With these kind of coding tasks you won't get any advantage of using differentiable programming paradigm, but it is a nice reminder how syntactically bad TensorFlow is. Code of any differentiable program should look identical to any non-differentiable program. Maybe a small annotation à la TorchScript [0] can be tolerated, but not reimplementing everything via function calls with overly descriptive names.

Btw link to GitHub repo is broken. Copy&pasting URL works.

[0] https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/jit_language_reference.html#...
Why will Facebook win the consumer VR market
What ban on reprocessing? The one Carter created that was removed by Reagan?

We aren't reprocessing in the US not because of some "ban", but because reprocessing is economically senseless. It literally costs more than it saves. The separated plutonium has negative value -- it costs more to convince someone to put it into MOX fuel than it saves in enriched uranium.
Downvotes (and flags) are getting ridiculous on this site. I’ve recently been downvoted for (among other things) criticising Tesla, speaking up for women, being a dick. Only one of those was justified.

This will also get downvoted.
I don't follow this...whose design?
Luckily there are democracies who are fianlly not ok with 1.5c and significant climate change long term.

Time will tell who wins out.
Brown nose
If I’ve never tasted it, it leaves open the possibility that it doesn’t actually taste good
What I dont want is to density to be mandated, I think if you eliminate the rules requiring not-density, it will develop on its own.
> Making PCBs, soldering components, flashing roms, testing, selling and shipping hardware takes effort. This is true regardless of Open Hardware.

It's a lot easier to upload some zip files to JLCPCB, have them assemble it and then sell them on eBay for 4x the cost than it is to do the initial design.

It seems rare to get any contributions back to hw projects (either in pull requests etc or donations) so it's unsurprising when I see talented people give up or go with non commercial licenses.

The usefulness I find in open source projects is the ability to learn, fix things etc
Packaging for instant coffee made out of seaweed
I mostly agree with your argument. But, if we just de facto accept everything for how it has been in the past. Then we stop making things better, for everybody involved.

Is Open-Source thriving? yes. Can we make fix the places where it's broken? Also, Yes.
That's how it is most of the time but I don't see how you can say it's "supposed to" be that way. It's pathological. Essentially it's a form of group sociopathy.
Why China's Largest Volcano Is So Unusual

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C2HVOB-g5s
Thanks! You can see the VT220 I modelled it off here: https://github.com/mmastrac/adventure/blob/master/com.grack....

I'm not really a front-end person so I just hacked on gradients until I could make it look just right.
It's not correct and does sound ridiculous. I highly recommend calling a domain attorney. Most will give you a free consultation. One person who specializes in this type of dispute is John Berryhill: https://johnberryhill.com/
My multiple cursor-fu isn't good enough to know how to do that with words of different lengths. I should get more into it.
Ask HN: What is the next big thing in Web development?
Ack! Right I hadn't thought of that. I'll have to decide if I'm ok with breaking the "written in standard C" constraint on this project...
Any time there’s a big vulnerability in an open source project, I brace myself for the inevitable barrage of reactionary statements making the same claims about open source maintainers, compensation, etc.

But while there’s some truth to the factual information, I simply disagree with the notion that open source is broken because of this. And there’s one specific pull quote I'd like to draw attention to:

> If log4j2 is responsible for your company's success, you have a moral obligation to donate to the person who creates this library thanklessly.

This is an interesting statement. I happen to disagree with it in a fairly vehement fashion; open source works specifically due to the lack of moral obligations. Part of what I am intentionally doing when I release code is waiving any legal obligations, and I in no way want to imply that I am replacing them with unspoken moral expectations. I just release software because I feel like it, and offer best-effort support (not great!) because I want to. For free. For other people to benefit off of, and for me to benefit mutually from in the form of bug fixes. (And if I even cared about it, GitHub stars.)

But the other reason it’s interesting is because it actually knocks at another truth:

Most users of a logging library like log4j have collectively very little credit to give to log4j for their success. As great of a library as it may be, it’s simply a tertiary concern for most software, which, most of the time, will be using very little of its functionality.

Instead, log4j offers the applications the ability to have better logging facilities at a relatively low cost thanks to open source and the lack of obligations it gives users. It’s usually not that important, but the collective quality-of-life improvement across the industry was evidently of great importance, seeing how much use it garnered.

Am I saying people shouldn’t go and donate to log4j? Absolutely not. But no, I disagree that you really have a moral obligation to pay maintainers for libraries you import. It’s extremely good that the maintainers of log4j are selfless enough to tirelessly provide support during this obviously volatile moment, but they are not required to, anymore than anyone is required to donate.

In any case, reactionary action every time something goes wrong sure as hell won’t fix anything that might be broken about open source.

If you want to be paid for something, consider not using the open source model, or using a dual-licensing model. Not all software simply must be open source. But: The largest net benefit to the world for something like log4j could only be seen with open source, and that is literally because of the lack of obligation, not in spite of it.
> Public companies also have accounts for goodwill in their books, don't they?

I've worked for multiple public companies and have yet to see this. I have seen different models. For example, when they want a feature in an open source project they may contract with maintainers to pay for work. Or, they may have a maintainer for a project on staff.

> Also, I'd even say that depending on volunteers for everything when you aren't in dire straits isn't to responsible.

Responsible to whom?

People choose to be volunteers. Being a volunteer and hoping for hand outs from companies it's working out well for most folks. Maybe it's time to look at other ways of doing things.

Note, I'm not suggesting what the right way to do things is. I'm just looking at how people are doing things. Expecting them to behave differently isn't likely going to bring about a change in them.
Companies barely spend money on their own internal security dept. It seems like it would be a hard sell to convince them to spend money on improving an external projects security posture. Maybe if it was core to their business, but investing to imorove the security posture of a logging library seems like a hard sell.
like dual licensees?qt?
Wait, I'm not sure how having the GPS coordinates etched helps anything. What do they get used for?
It depends on how immediate things are, because you need a certain amount of warning to quality as level 3. A sufficiently rapid switchoff into danger puts you more in level 2 territory.
The cheat code in the US is to say "I was afraid the guy with the [fists | bat | skateboard] was going to take my rifle and shoot me with it."
Quite honestly, I think that if companies paid open source maintainers to get the features they wanted, the log4j problem would NOT have been averted at all, it would likely have happened earlier... notice that the source of the issue (support for JNDI lookups right into any log messages) was introduced because of someone asking for that feature (and getting it for free!)... if a company had paid for it, it would've been just the same, I doubt very much the company would have done any kind of security veto on the implementation.

What's needed is for open source libraries to somehow get "rated" by security experts before they get used by businesses. If those businesses using it paid for that, and then paid someone to fix any issues found, then I think we would have a working solution. Just paying for features would just make things worse... have you ever seen companies paying for security features, though?? No, I haven't at least... they pay for business features that will make them money, they hope, security is kind of just implied (and they might lay the blame entirely on the developer if they actually had a business relationship with them - which may be a big nightmare, actually, for OSS developers - and I am one of them myself... you can no longer use a license that just says you're not liable to anything bad that happens).
much like realizing you can count all time-signatures in 4/4, or realizing the nazi's don't really care about markets or competition, or capitalism for that matter, it's just authoritarian oligarchy
D is an excellent mix of good design decisions, metaprogramming (your macros can run arbitrary code at compile time, a la zig), and a nice standard library. They also have some of the best API-building libraries available, and the compiler has the ability to run source code almost as if it were interpreted and it caches binaries under /tmp/ to avoid work if the source is unchanged.
That’s because solar produces a tiny fraction of our energy mix. Replacing a single average US reactor with solar would require something like 200 square miles.

Nuclear’s problem is badly written regulation and insane environmental review policies. That and the one off nature of their construction. We need to standardize and rewrite regulation based on probabilistic risk rather than worst case scenario planning and the linear non-threshold model.
> What about movies and TV shows?

I think games can be more addictive (citation needed).

> Theatre?

You can't go to the theatre for 12 hours a day, can you?
I've had it a few times and it's very good, but not better than most good rice. I think people mostly just don't have nice or fresh rice, they fine Carolina gold which is very well branded and think it's the best. It's not hard to find better than average rice online[0].

0: https://helpatmyhome.com/buy-rice-online/
There are many ESP32 smartwatches available on Aliexpress for about this price. ESP32 is compatible with Arduino IDE, PlatformIO, and many other development tools.
It really irks me that the UK government seems to be highly wedded to Microsoft and its technology stack. Every public-sector service is increasingly being pushed towards it; for example, I recently completed a FOI request that showed most of the UK's ~150 universities each pay almost exactly ~£1m per annum to them. Whilst undoubtedly a lot of that does buy a lot of different services, I wish the UK IT people would develop their own in-house capability to do things competently -- something they quietly have a reputation for -- and not outsource everything to a large US multinational corporation that stamps firmly on competition.
Is this bullshit too? (honest question, i don't know)

> but industrial rates in El Salvador are US13¢ to US15¢ per kilowatt-hour. In one four-day period, the Berlín operation mined $US269 of bitcoin — and was estimated to have spent at least $US4672 worth of electricity doing so

because if it's not bullshit, the economics of this are firmly in the scam territory.
But quite economical at starship prices per ton.

I feel like this option is not seriously considered enough.
Thank you, jorgesborges. I will try it.
Entirely possible. Although I suspect more libraries and tools will go that way as well. Note that mine was in theory a library/tool. And the examples mentioned in the blog post were similarly infrastructural.

Most of us work at such high levels of abstraction we couldn't even name all our dependencies. Which in effect makes us the same sort of consumers app users are: expecting a lot out but not putting anything in.
I feel like code security blogs are always loaded with Furry/Anime avatars, memes, artwork, etc...
Or pay more to the competition? Nobody is on par with SpaceX right now.
This is pretty amazing, I'll buy one as soon as possible.

Can you modify the OS itself.

I want to program a watch that doesn't actually tell time.
It's a bit dubious that paying maintainers more will make them write more secure code. Certainly professional developers who write closed source have produced plenty of vulnerable code in exchange for their six-figure salaries. If you're really concerned whether a particular open source package is secure, it'd make more sense to pay a third party to audit it than the maintainer.
I mean I learned the basics of C before the internet was around from the C in 21 days books. not really a predatory book imo. it's just an intro.
Are the vector ops variable width? And 1024 bit?

The RISC-V standard is quite expansive, I can't tell the intent in the article.
Replying to myself to add: Digital Foundry [analysis](https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2021-insid...) is now up. They're impressed.
It is really not that hard with the right licensing.

Offer your FOSS project with the meanest anti-corporation license you can find (AGPL?) which is not going to bother your user base but it is going to be a major hurdle for any corporation and then offer the software with a corporate friendly license for 100.000 / year.

Wouldn't this work?
Every time I've seen a Rothko in a museum I've felt underwhelmed. But the Rothko Chapel in Houston, Texas is something special. Quiet, immersive, spiritual. Secular spiritualism.

While you're there hop across the street to the Byzantine Fresco Chapel to catch their latest insane installation.
yes, but we can't know if they are so we have to speculate based on behavior and other cognitive functions that we associate with self-awareness.