4 ms·
> Wasn’t the tweet recommendation system “open sourced” as well? Does this guy know the difference between open source and “open source”? What do you mean? The
by aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> Wasn’t the tweet recommendation system “open sourced” as well? Does this guy know the difference between open source and “open source”?
What do you mean? There exists only one binding definition of open source
> https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
and either some product does satisfy it, or it doesn't. As far as I am aware
> https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm
does satisfy the open source definition, so your sarcasm looks demagogical to me, but I am very willing to learn something new.
- torlok 3y agoI think people expected him to "open" the algorithm so that you could tell how the recommendations are determined, and instead what people got was an Underpants Gnomes' Plan with a neural network step in the middle and no weights.
- tomalbrc 3y agoSo it is not open source, thank you for the info.
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- stolsvik 3y agoWhile I agree there is a common understanding of what open source is, there most definitely does not exist any "binding definition"! It is not trademarked, copyrighted (and it never could have been, two common words that it is), or in any country's legally protected terms, or anything else. It is really grating to see such nonsense repeated way to often.
- 7moritz7 3y ago> There exists only one binding definition of open source >> https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Insert Obama awarding himself meme. Who said that this is the "only binding definition"?