lolinder

40 ms·

661.
by lolinder 2y ago
I'm really confused—are you talking about AI training? I'm talking about corporations building systems on top of FOSS. Also, why did you feel the need to create a throwaway for this comment?
662.
by lolinder 2y ago
> If you pick a non-OSI licence, that has social costs (as you said, less interest from other developers for example) Yes. People make a decision to choose from the FOSS licenses because being seen as FOSS is valuable to them. That comes
663.
by lolinder 2y ago
They should have put Free Software in capitals to be more clear, but they're referring to the Four Essential Freedoms as defined by the Free Software Foundation [0]: > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (fre
664.
by lolinder 2y ago
> before stealing your stuff. You were at least consistent up until this point, but this phrasing runs directly counter to the rest of your thesis. It's not stealing to use software that you put out as FOSS to be used by anyone for
665.
by lolinder 2y ago
I'm not interested in engaging with you further because you've now twice ignored the main point of my argument in favor of nitpicks and out of context quotes asserting that I said things I didn't say. There's no point in
666.
by lolinder 2y ago
But that is true regardless of whether a male is fit enough to survive a cannibalistic female, which means that pacifist females do not have an advantage in natural selection: As long as there are enough males in circulation that can succ
667.
by lolinder 2y ago
Then please do! I'm definitely open for discussion if you care to offer any.
668.
by lolinder 2y ago
Yes, because there is no concept of "species" in nature, species is an arbitrary grouping we humans apply to the individuals and genetic lines that are actually involved in natural selection. The female's genes are most likel
669.
by lolinder 2y ago
And as the CEO he's one of the few people who can reasonably make the claim that he's instrumental in creating the money-making system that is Google. We can argue about whether or not that perception is accurate in his case, but
670.
by lolinder 2y ago
> First of all, Pareto Principle, so some employees contribute a ton and many contribute less. Correct. But with very few exceptions I don't believe that any one person contributes $500m in value over 5 years. > Second of all, ha
671.
by lolinder 2y ago
That framing doesn't change my logic at all: replace the direct earning of $N/year with the probability of earning $N/year and the same logic still applies. An employee doesn't contribute the probability, an employee wor
672.
by lolinder 2y ago
Okay, you're right, I grabbed the wrong number. Sub in $1.5m/year or $500m/5 years and replace "bottom line this year" with "bottom line over the next 5 years". The exact numbers don't matter, the poi
673.
by lolinder 2y ago
This kind of math betrays a total lack of understanding of the way businesses earn money. With vanishingly few exceptions, no one developer makes the company $500m, and this is trivially testable with a quick thought exercise: Would Google&
674.
by lolinder 2y ago
Roblox does seem to be particularly bad at moderating it. For example, the Wikipedia section on Club Penguin's child safety concerns [0] makes it look like Disneyland compared to the reports I've read about Roblox. [0] https:&#
675.
by lolinder 2y ago
It's possible it's QWERTY-related as a sibling suggests, but there's also precedent for this specific kind of sound change in many dialects of English: /d/ is a stop consonant, which are commonly inserted in the mid
676.
by lolinder 2y ago
Then I don't actually know what you meant by your original comment. What was the political ideology manifested by that sentence?
677.
by lolinder 2y ago
> or else just one or two “Go to definition” clicks away This is the biggest part of it: maintainers need static analysis and/or (preferably and) very good grepability to help them navigate foreign code. Ruby by its nature makes sta
678.
by lolinder 2y ago
To the best of my knowledge that is correct, yes. The way that they've structured it they can't legally do otherwise.
679.
by lolinder 2y ago
That's progress, but also: why is this the structure? It makes no sense to not send donations to the thing they think they're donating to, and I really can't believe that there's no way they could have structured it to m
680.
by lolinder 2y ago
Well, this is the opening line from that comment: > > Those needs are privacy related and having control over the software you use. > That’s fair enough, but I’ve tried to stay away from branding Waterfox as such to try and avoid i
681.
by lolinder 2y ago
The Foundation owns the Corporation, so technically the Corporation answers to the Foundation, but because the Foundation is a non-profit it can't actually transfer resources to its for-profit arm, only the other way around. Usually th
682.
by lolinder 2y ago
> it’s an always/never take No, it isn't—I'm the one who inserted the word "almost" into that sentence! Where did you get the idea that I meant always/never? Like I said, you can point to exceptions but that
683.
by lolinder 2y ago
Yeah, I'm pretty uncomfortable with Waterfox because of that episode. In the HN thread the creator responded to complaints about this privacy-unfriendly turn by saying that they "tried to stay away from branding Waterfox as"
684.
by lolinder 2y ago
When you left, do you have a sense for how many developers were actually working on Firefox full-time? I'm curious because people always say that Firefox would be impossible to fund, pointing to Mozilla's expenses, but I've n
685.
by lolinder 2y ago
This is what people said about Search before Kagi. And, incidentally, those folks are also working on a paid browser that real people do buy. Times change. Subscriptions are normalized, and tech people are increasingly aware of the hazards
686.
by lolinder 2y ago
You can't donate to Firefox anyway—you can only donate to the Mozilla Foundation, which isn't alowed to work on Firefox. The Mozilla Corporation owns Firefox, and money can only flow from the Corporation to the Foundation. So ever
687.
by lolinder 2y ago
Global state is a tool that will almost always lead to bad architecture in an app where architecture matters. I'm sure you can point to a counterexample or two where a set of devs managed to keep disciplined indefinitely, but that do
688.
by lolinder 2y ago
I'm wary of equating "ability to create dsls like this" with "prioritizing developer experience". Ruby and go each prioritize different parts of the developer experience. Ruby prioritizes the experience of the autho
689.
by lolinder 2y ago
But when later does come, it can take dev-years to fully disentangle the global state and allow code reuse. Did you gain dev-years in productivity by using it in the first place? Probably not. If you have good reason to believe that an app
690.
by lolinder 2y ago
Sorry, I like Ruby, but this is nonsense. Rails apps get enormous very quickly, like apps written in every other framework. In most work you can't just declare that your world will be small, your world is as big as your problem is.

More ›