anyzen

Ha, thank you! That explains it... I've had several signups via Tor to my service, none of them confirmed, every few days... I guess they were checking if they can somehow abuse the mails.

Google don’t sell privacy.

Of course they do. They sell users' privacy for advertising dollars.

I am not defending DDG here, as they are clearly in the wrong - but let's not pretend that their error is even close to what Google does.

It doesn't work that way. Attackers don't check if you are using "Omega", they check if you are vulnerable. There is simply no difference if you are hiding framework indicators here.

Well - unless there is a targeted attack _against you_. In this case the attacker will search for known vulnerabilities in Omega and maybe even try to come up with some new ones. Having source helps the attackers here, but then again, it has helped researchers fix the vulnerabilities too. So it's a mixed blessing.

This! I am quite sure that most projects, in exchange for some negligible part of Google's money, would be more than happy to offer the software under a different license. My guess is that it's the difficulty of ensuring that the new license terms are not breached (the license would need to be checked by lawyers, approved,...) that is the real deal breaker.

Not that I sympathise with Google here, they can afford to give something back to FOSS (not just when it advances their agenda).

Personally I like restructuredText as the preferred format for content as its a complete specification and plain text.

I have used rst intensively on a project. A few years later, I would be hard pressed to write anything in ti and would need to start with a Quick Start tutorial. With all its faults, Markdown is simple enough that it can be (and is) used anywhere, so there is no danger of me forgetting its syntax (even if it wasn't much simpler to star with).

So personally I would prefer md over rst anytime.

A bit off-topic - the license [0] is interesting. IIUC, if anyone who is using this code decides to sue NVidia, the grants are revoked, and they can sue back for copyright infringement?

Also, interesting that even with such "short" licences there are trivial mistakes in it (section 2.2 is missing, though it is referenced from 3.4 and 3.6 - I wonder what it was...)

[0] https://nvlabs.github.io/stylegan2/license.html

Off topic: this is the same Brendan Gregg of flame charts fame [0][1]. It has solved my skin quite a few times when trying to figure out performance bottlenecks in Python apps (using pyflame[2] to capture data and FlameGraph[1] to convert it to displayable SVG).

[0] http://www.brendangregg.com/flamegraphs.html

[1] https://github.com/brendangregg/FlameGraph

[2] https://github.com/uber-archive/pyflame

Even electric bikes are not the solution, at least not in many parts of the world. What happens when it rains / snows? I don't know what the solution is though, maybe small electric cars, self driven, as part of public transportation service?

It's 1216 and 2399 actually.

I am having trouble finding this news - all I see is this:

------

To the MIT community,

I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT. I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.

Richard Stallman

------

Is this somehow connected to his role as FSF president?

(edit: formatting)

So I wasn't the only one... I initially read "Rust". :)

It is also at least some level of defense against malicious npm packages (doesn't eliminate threat completely, but at least less sophisticated attacks will be thwarted).

CSP headers are a very useful tool and I encourage everyone to use them. They are a PITA to set up though. Fortunately at least Firefox clearly communicates in console log when a CSP rule is hit, and how to relax it (if it was by mistake).

Note that CSP can be set as META tags too. There's a gotcha though: if they are set in both places (HTTP headers and HTML META tags), an intersection of the rules is used.

He does still need to withdraw funds though, which might be a problem nowadays (with KYC). Or are there still anonymous ways to withdraw funds?

Yes, it looks this way to me too. Interesting that they didn't join forces.

In other words, Android is "open source" too. But I still don't have control over my phone.

I met Goog people at my coffee shop...

I couldn't believe it was that easy

You're kiding, right? :)

Yes, it looks like this is one of the few ways one can make the appeals work. Awful solution though.

I love this term, thank you! It is so fitting.

I strongly disagree. Git rebase is a very useful command, but of course you need to know what you are doing. Git becomes very weird if you try to avoid its core concepts... as far as I'm concerned, use rebase, get yourself cut (or better yet, learn about it before using it) and try not to repeat mistakes.

That said, git porcelain is simply awful. It is inconsistent and full of dangers - there is no way I would dare try new commands without reading up on them, because the names are often misleading. Sometimes I really wish GitHub / GitLab used Mercurial as their foundation. I think the world of programming would be much easier....

The complexity is not specific to FOSS. The incentive as described however is.

It's certainly a concern but many companies make it work.

They do? Maybe. But they are walking a thin line between their short term (make it complex so we can, you know, sell support) and long term (make it simple enough that people don't jump ship) commercial interests. This is the reason I call it "unnecessarily" complex - it is in the interest of companies who sell support services that the product is not as easy to use as it could be.

Do we really need this? I think not, and I actually prefer what Redis Labs, MariaDB and others have been doing with the licenses for their modules. Sure, Business Source license and similar are not open-source (as in "freedom to take the product you have built and sell services on top of it, driving you out of similar business as collateral damage"), but at least they provide developers with the incentive to produce easy to use software, and not just because they feel like it, but because they can actually earn their living from it.

There might be some exceptions that "make it work", but this is in spite of just selling services on top of their product, not because of it. The cards are stacked against them - it is much easier (and profitable) to take other persons' product and build on it that it is to build your own.

In my experience, selling support is an acceptable answer only in the eyes of would-be competitors. Otherwise it is just plain wrong. </rant>

Wrong answer. Selling support means that the developer is incentivized to make product unnecessarily complex. Also, with recent developments it turns out that other entities might be better at providing support than original developers, taking away the option to monetize OSS. Why bother writing your own software, when you can just sell services and provide support for a different one?

Note that RedHat, often quoted as success story, is really a services company that just happens to write an occasional piece of software, and support them when their customers need it.

So you're excluding deploying/maintaining Open Source Software as a service. That basically excludes how Open Source is supposed to get monetized.

Is it? This means that incentives would be wrong, because then developers would be incentivized to produce difficult to use (but useful!) software - with various poorly documented features, multiple ways to solve the same problems, poor and inconsistent UX... Oh wait... </s>

I am sorry Redis labs got the heat for their license change and I really hope some solution crops up. I appreciate opensource, but I am getting tired of poorly implemented systems, just because there is no incentive to do it differently.

I think the solution lies in "free-to-use (but not free-to-sell), source available" licenses. I haven't seen one that would convince me yet, but I am certain that with big-tech companies behaving like they do, more and more developers will think twice before giving away their work for free just so others can make billions off it (and take away income from the very companies providing bread and butter to FOSS developers - coughAWScough).

Interesting question! I would assume that some invoice must be generated, but it can be in electronic form (e-mail). Getting this right internationally is still a major problem as far as I'm aware, but would love to know if there is a (cheap enough) service that solves it...

Off topic, but maybe you should try Firefox for Android? I have it on mobile (with uMatrix admittedly) and it hasn't crashed on me for ages...

No, but I am curious too - that would be a nice idea to kick-start a distributed social network imho.

Or invitation links (with auth tokens).

I have yet to meet a person who did it though. Though I'll admit that the argument against automatic updates is a good one..

This doesn't make sense to me. Ok, so I understand that it is time consuming to take the first measurement, but I would assume that the first bra would be expensive, but all the next ones would be much cheaper (if it's the same model) or getting cheaper and cheaper with each order. What am I missing?

Am I missing something? Google gives me the creeps as much as it does to any sane person, but if I understand correctly, DDG is comparing just the variation of results on each page. This doesn't mean that you're still in the (same) bubble when you log out.

How about comparing the logged-in data with logged-out / private tab data? Did they find these two sets related? If not, G could be just implementing some sort of A/B testing on grand scale (learning from clicks and making search algorithm better).

Sure - but do you? Does anyone?

EDIT: a better solution would be if the store itself allowed you to inspect the source that went into building the plugin. Then you would only need to trust the store itself, which you already do (when you trust the browser).