skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Mozilla already tried making Bing the default. They went back to Google eventually, probably because Google paid them, but I would guess the user response was probably negative too. That's just a guess however.

I doubt that people who would never think to change their default search engine would complain about the choice of search engines. Google vastly overpays for the privilege of being the default search engine because the existence of firefox protects their browser monopoly. Microsoft gets no such benefit, so I assume they wanted to reduce their payment to a more rational value 4 or 5 orders of magnitude smaller than the half-billion from Google.
More women than men have added their DNA to the human gene pool
It's not in bad faith to say that there's a cognitive load to having longer line lengths or, god forbid, wrapped lines when you're trying to figure out what the code is actually doing with that data the variables represent. Obviously the Python "except" case being discussed is not a big deal in this regard, but you made a blanket statement about character count being no big deal because of big hard drives and IDEs.
Agreed. Frustrates me to no end that some of the most loved OSS projects don't have quality helm/Kube guides and basically say "here's a docker compose, you're on your own." The "it's open source, but our operator is closed" makes my head steam sometimes.

I wish they would just go source available so they can provide a higher quality product.
The Psychology of Inventive Creativity (1956) [pdf]
My argument was that "7 was good and 10 was bad" is something I say now and I will still say in the future, as it has been for past versions.
The “|” operator was already used for set unions and binary OR, so it’s a little late to reserve it for control flow. Personally I don’t mind having a “dict union” operator at all.
It keeps AWS from gobbling up your business for free. In that sense, it's strictly better.
It solidly answered the question: "Is evolutionary sequence relationship and structure data sufficient to predict a large fraction of the structures that proteins adopt". the answer, surprising few, is that the data we have indeed can be used to make general predictions (even outside of the training classes), and also surprising many, that we can do so with a minimum of evolutionary sequence data.

That people are arguing about the finer details of what it gets wrong is support for its value, not a detriment.
It's an interesting view because I find neatly compartmentalized functions easier to read and less error prone, though he does point out that copying chunks of code such as vector operations can lead to bugs when you forget to change some variable. I guess it depends on the function. Something like

Vector c = dotProduct(a, b);

is readable enough and doesn't warrant inlining, I think. There's nothing about `dotProduct` that I would expect to have any side effects, especially if its prototype looks like:

Vector dotProduct(Vector const& a, Vector const& b) const;
I've noticed this a lot lately too. Convoluted install process for a non-production setup (without a guide for production quality), outdated docs; but only from open-source software that has a paid for SaaS variant (looking at you Supabase). Not that these companies owe me anything, but I do feel that these strategies diminish the open-source scene.
It seems that it doesn’t so much “have a very clear definition” as a small faction are attempting to create a definition.

What is clear about “with minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model”? Don’t business models change over time? Doesn’t this suggest that if I were to stake my venture on such a “fair” element of software, it would be fine unless I turned out to succeed, in which case the producer could rightfully box me out (or, more likely, extort a ransom)?

Which, I suppose, is a roundabout way of saying: “fair” to whom? Such an “author-first source-available” license may well prevent the specific unfairness of AWS-style snarfage, but would seem to open the door to different kinds of unfairness years down the line. The absolutism of the OSS “zealots” seems much clearer, even with all its tradeoffs.
"idiot's apostrophe" or to call it another way "how the English speakers do it" is quite offensive to a native English speaker! Thanks Germany.
Sometimes it's easier to define some vocabulary and then use it. Like defining push and pop on a stack vs stack[++ix] = blah and blah = stack[ix--].

And avoids needing to think about it being prefix or postfix after you don't that one time.

But at other times it's insufferable, when the abstraction is leaky and unintuitive.
> side effect benefit of big kahuna companies mainly on the significant breakthrough and game changing research output

“Given that production could be carried on without any organization, Coase asks, 'Why and under what conditions should we expect firms to emerge?' Since modern firms can only emerge when an entrepreneur of some sort begins to hire people, Coase's analysis proceeds by considering the conditions under which it makes sense for an entrepreneur to seek hired help instead of contracting out for some particular task.
The traditional economic theory of the time suggested that, because the market is ‘efficient’ (that is, those who are best at providing each good or service most cheaply are already doing so), it should always be cheaper to contract out than to hire.

Coase noted, however, that there are a number of transaction costs to using the market; the cost of obtaining a good or service via the market is actually more than just the price of the good. Other costs, including search and information costs, bargaining costs, keeping trade secrets, and policing and enforcement costs, can all potentially add to the cost of procuring something via the market. This suggests that firms will arise when they can arrange to produce what they need internally, and somehow avoid these costs.

There is a natural limit to what can be produced internally, however. Coase notices ‘decreasing returns to the entrepreneur function’, including increasing overhead costs and increasing propensity for an overwhelmed manager to make mistakes in resource allocation. This is a countervailing cost to the use of the firm.

Coase argues that the size of a firm (as measured by how many contractual relations are ‘internal’ to the firm and how many ‘external’) is a result of finding an optimal balance between the competing tendencies of the costs outlined above. In general, making the firm larger will initially be advantageous, but the decreasing returns indicated above will eventually kick in, preventing the firm from growing indefinitely.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm
China boosts quantum computer production with self-developed chips
Even without the targeting, advertising is still psychological manimpulation trying to get you to act in someone elses best interest instead of your own. Why would you allow that in your computer in any form?
Eventually, large language models will be the end of open source. That's ok, just accept it.

Large language models are used to aggregate and interpolate intellectual property.

This is performed with no acknowledgement of authorship or lineage, with no attribution or citation.

In effect, the intellectual property used to train such models becomes anonymous common property.

The social rewards (e.g., credit, respect) that often motivate open source work are undermined.

That's how it ends.
> force more characters for the same functionality

This is actually a good thing in some cases (possibly this one). Risky stuff should inherently be harder to do than safer stuff, otherwise people will reach for the risky alternatives when they don't need to, just to save time - or because they don't realize the risk.

Or at least, that's often the case. What's lacking here is evidence that this is actually happening. I can believe it, but evidence is necessary for breaking the language.
Is "open weights" open washing?

I thought calling LLM weights that are openly available but not OSI-compatible open source "open source" was open washing, but I didn't think there were any problems at all with the term "open weights".
I dunno. O(n^2) is for sure a bug. But O(nlogn) I think is reasonable.
Wonder if it is putting things onto p-cores more aggressively. Would need to the power graphs at the same time to see that.
If someone on my team or in my company proposed to break most of our python code for no substantial reason, unless they were pretty junior I would count that as a real red flag against their judgement.

How do people land on the python steering council exactly?
Wages won't ever eat up 100% of the productivity gains. That defeats the point of investing in productivity gains. If you have ten ditch diggers, but then buy a steamshovel, the operator of the steamshovel earns more than the ditch diggers, but doesn't earn 10 salaries.

I am from a developing country. There aren't a lot of super rich here. In fact there isn't much wealth at all. Having some greater gini coefficient doesn't mean you have more wealth, inequality really isn't a relevant measure.

If raising wages was the only component to development, Somalia could simply set their minimum wage to $50 an hour and watch the country soar. Wages follow development, not the other around.
... but even before the rule change, in virtue of being a proper name, if the proprietor calls it "Eva's Blumenladen", and it's marked as such, wasn't it proper usage to refer to it that way?
If I call my English business, "Joes Cafe" (intentionally not using an apostrophe), wouldn't it be incorrect for people to refer to it in writing as "Joe's Cafe"?
Idk man, I'm pretty sure I consume a lot fewer labor hours than a billionaire with a super-yacht. The thing to focus on is how many labor-hours someone is consuming. When a billionaire allocates ~20 people of labor-hours every day to maintaining that super-yacht, that means there's ~20 people fewer labor hours for services for everyone else. And building that super-yacht also consumed a lot of high-skill labor hours.
Agreed.

Source available is also useful in high end environments to ensure security and reduce loopholes.

This is very helpful for software used by security agencies, for example.
It's not meaningless, the author just doesn't like it. Open-source and source available were always meant to be watered-down versions of the FSF's free software specifically to be more palatable to businesses. That's not a bug and it's not even a feature. It's the freaking mission statement.
> but I couldn't get the clerk at the store to understand what was wrong.

I would have loved to watch that conversation :-)
I wouldn't mind for English to have "standardisation body" akin to French or German one (or RAE for Spanish) that could maybe get rid of backward, dumb spelling ;)

(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_refo...)
Elixir's 'pipes' always felt very hacky to me. (But so does most of the language, compared to Erlang.)
"Fair source" means more than just "not open source" - see https://fair.io/about/

IMO the most interesting part of the fair source definition is the commitment to "delayed Open Source publication" https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication
Telling someone to "Please consult an attorney" when they ask if you can check the box if you pay for ACF Pro sure qualifies as inserting FUD into the ecosystem to my non-lawyer mind.

https://x.com/JavierCasares/status/1843963074904227945
Making up a new name really?
I have an open source project that I am thinking about monetizing.
In the end as an author you actually have to choose a sensible license set-up for that project.

If this then counts as open-source or not really only matters for marketing purposes. And a new term will not have the same effect for that. If I put fair-source on my landing page it just means I have to explain more.

People that really care about the license will read the license. People that don't really care will be fine with generic terms imo and don't need the classification.
That's a really nice implementation. I feel like it should be easy for that to support videos too, if desired. I assume it's just using a media element under the hood.
Is that really common?
>> I fail to see how this is even being considered.

To me it stinks of an ego-centric person thinking they're a "language developer" and knowing better than the actual users of the language what's best for them. Just because something can be misused doesn't mean you have to take it away.

I haven't noticed, but since Rust came along is there a trend among languages to enforce "safer" programming at the language level? I could see that kind of thinking getting way out of hand. If that's the case, I would see this one as "I'm going to save the world with this dumb little change that breaks things for a bunch of people!"

I would hope a PEP like this came about from frequent user requests but that doesn't seem to be the case.
NOAA drops scientist's ashes into the eye of Category 5 Milton
Hard disagree there. It was way too easy to get yourself into an incompatibility hell with the old resolver, where package A relied on transitive dependency X v1.2 and package B needed X v2.1. Which version of X you got depended on whether you installed A or B first.

Yes, the new version did mean I had to straighten out a few projects that were already working before, but they were working by coincidence because my code paths weren’t stumbling across the incompatibilities. The problem already existed. The new resolver just exposed it.
Open Source has already been open washed. It used to mean you get the source code. Now it comes with all extra "freedom" stipulations.
After reading the article , here's what I would argue
Fair source actually means that a project is source available except it doesn't intend on hurting the end user in the sense that most people wouldn't find the difference , generally the difference is that the parent company of the project is the only one able to provide its services of hosting it for other people etc.

this is its 2nd points in a gest (though fair source doesn't necessarily implicate that its only for hosting , the 2nd point is somewhat vague but decent enough because they want more companies under the umbrella)

this and delayed open source

I kind of agree with this sentiment. Primarily because there is time spent in making something , and I would like to see returns on it as well but I do feel like "open source" is good thing

this is the thing where my morales can somewhat agree is that though it doesn't fit osi definition , I am somewhat Ok with it . It's a compromise that I see myself , a somewhat hard core foss guy to agree to .

so I am probably going to use it in any of my projects

either this or massive agpl / sspl

or if I am feeling generous and its not a business then MIT license
Source Available means exactly what it says, and I don't need to look up a definition somewhere. From what I understand, I can view the source code and verify that a software does what it claims and does not have some hidden nastiness.

What the hell does "Fair Source" even imply? Fair to whom, the author or the users? Stop with the bullshit already.
I love it when the top comments on a hacker news thread is justifying monopolies. Fuck economics right?
I mean ditch SAML. We use Keycloak as a SAML to OpenId translator, essentially, so if we could get JWT tokens from our IdPs directly, we wouldn't need Keycloak.
So we've moved on from open washing to full on source laundering lmao.

I'd like to buy a beer for the 'zealot' that buried themselves so far underneath the author's skin that they were compelled to write this useless article.

This is currently the top post, feeling pretty disappointed in you hn.
Death and the Digital Estate
This is America, the land of opportunity. The tools are already at the Justice Department for them to wield. If they do not use them, that is on them for a lack of willpower. Why not try and see something through for a change?
We open sourced our air quality monitor (firmware & hardware) under CC-BY-SA.

The SA (share-a-like) gives quite a lot of protection in regards to the concerns that the author rises as most companies that would take our source code would not be willing to keep it open and also probably not so keen to attribute us as originators.

I think what also many people forget is that the source-code is actually only a small part of business success. In my opinion the network, reputation and community that a company builds has much more value than the actual code.

We went fully open source hardware more than 2 years ago and it was probably one of our best decisions as a company.
> allows use, modification, and redistribution with minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model

That part is not something that a lot of folks running "source-available" want. It may have nothing to do with competition.

I license most of my stuff as MIT. It allows folks to reuse the source in any way they want (few people do, which is fine by me). Just don't come crying to me, if you mess things up.

I can easily envision authors of open-source projects being hit, if their stuff gets caught up in things like breaches, malware, or scamming. In many cases (in the US), the suits may not have merit, but they are still a major distraction. Just the suit can be crippling, and many suits can't be anti-SLAPPed.

There's a few reasons that I like to open my source:

- It allows folks to ensure that my stuff doesn't violate anyone else's IP.

- I would like to hear if I have made any big mistakes. Sometimes, someone may see that I'm doing something in a boneheaded way, and offer a correction (sometimes, in a nasty way, but I still appreciate the help).

- If there are problems with things like App Store reviews, or SDK bugs, the ability to point to the entire project, is helpful.

- I am sincerely interested in "giving back," and genuinely hope that folks (even if they are a bit "rough around the edges"), can learn from it.

On another note, I suspect that the use of "zealots" throughout the post, may be to encourage passionate response. Many folks like all the clicks that outrage brings.
I have no idea. But considering how many people are getting banned from contributing, a fork seems more and more likely imo.
Learning new technology and/or working on a new project is a monster of a task. And the way to make it manageable is as-always - break it up into smaller tasks. Every large task is just a bunch of small ones in disguise so break it apart and then work on manageable smaller tasks. You will also get a small dopamine hit after completing each smaller task which will keep you going.

"AI" is very good at helping you tear apart a big task into smaller manageable ones so you can get help there if you get stuck on how to make this happen. Godspeed!
Yeah, no. I know I'll mistakenly do

except Exception:
resource.rollback()
raise

instead of

except BaseException:
resource.rollback()
raise

and it's going to be really hard to insert a test case which ensures I really handled KeyboardInterrupt and the like.
How do you know, that any application you run is actually the source you read?

How do you know, that the application is actually working if you cannot build it properly (because i see cases of buildrecipes missing)
[dupe]

Discussion on login link instead of generic top-level: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41787409
It is this argument, about what benefits the jaguars themselves bring to the farmers, that is unfortunately lacking from the article.

Thank you for the additional context.
The anti-trust case isn't about Google's LLM business.
Show HN: FinetuneDB – AI fine-tuning platform to create custom LLMs
Hey HN! We’re building FinetuneDB (https://finetunedb.com/), an LLM fine-tuning platform. It enables teams to easily create and manage high-quality datasets, and streamlines the entire workflow from fine-tuning to serving and evaluating models with domain experts. You can check out our docs here: (https://docs.finetunedb.com/)

FinetuneDB exists because creating and managing high-quality datasets is a real bottleneck when fine-tuning LLMs. The quality of your data directly impacts the performance of your fine-tuned models, and existing tools didn’t offer an easy way for teams to build, organize, and iterate on their datasets. We’ve been working closely with our pilot customers, both AI startups and more traditional businesses like a large newspaper, which is fine-tuning models on their articles to automate content generation in their tone of voice.

The platform is built with an end-to-end workflow in mind, from dataset building, fine-tuning, serving, and evaluating outputs. The centerpiece is a version-controlled, no-code dataset manager where you can upload existing datasets in JSONL, use production data, or collaborate with domain experts to create high-quality datasets for custom use cases. We also offer evaluation workflows that allow non-technical contributors to annotate data, review model outputs, and refine responses (LLM-as-judge also available).

We offer:

- A free tier for developers and hobbyists who want to streamline dataset management.

- Business-tier with full feature access for teams, using per-seat pricing.

- A custom tier for model hosting, custom integrations, and self-hosting.

Most users still use OpenAI models, but if you're working with open-source LLMs, we offer pay-as-you-go pricing for serverless inference for Llama and Mistral models with up to €100 in free credits to get started.

We're in public beta right now, so any feedback—whether it’s about features, usability, or anything else—would be incredibly valuable.

If you've worked on fine-tuning models before or are curious about custom LLMs, we’d love to hear from you. Our goal is to make the fine-tuning process more accessible and help more companies leverage their data and domain experts to create custom LLMs.

Thanks for checking it out!
I find it ironic that all of the confusion and controversy around both the terms "open source" (and "free software") have highlighted the importance and justification of trade marks. What these movements could really benefit from are legally-protected trade descriptors that mean exactly what the originator means, and nothing different. But instead the internet is full of endless arguments about what these words mean, because FSF/OSI didn't have the foresight (or desire?) to advocate for unique trademarkable names.

OSI made a mistake when they borrowed the term "Open Source" from the intelligence community and RMS made a mistake when he presumed that everyone on the planet would understand that "free as in beer" wasn't what he meant. Ultimately, while these groups were had great thought about software licensing, they weren't great with communication, branding, or marketing.

I think we'd all be better off if we just started using "OSI Open Source" where that was what was actually meant. Trying to redefine words or phrases with existing connotations is a futile exercise.
agreed.

I do want to see a proper definition which could be explained better legally.

But the idea is pretty good in my opinion (unless you are one of those people who want open source to be free labour for your company)
That's a pure function, which he says should be the goal. It's impure functions that he's talking about.
Indeed, its a trap. There are many ways out, all have tradeoffs. Find the way out you are most comfortable with. Spend less, earn more, save more, invest prudently. These are the levers available to you to achieve an outcome.
I've run ubuntu for most of the last 20 years and my desktop has barely changed. It was excellent in 2006, it is excellent now. It gets out of my way and doesn't change from one year to the next (or if there are changes they are so gradual I don't notice)

Installation of ubuntu went seriously downhill since they moved to subiquity though, but its something I can live with once every 5 years or so when I get a new laptop.