ddevault

I dunno, names are scarce and if a project fails then I don't see too much wrong with reuse of the name.

That's not quite how it works, you can relicense stuff under GPL and your distribution and any changes you made are GPL'd but the original remains MIT.

https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/participate/derived-work...

https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/participate/copyright-ow...

It's just such a pointless distraction. Don't make it about you? It reminds me of men who hear that women get paid less and start complaining about their own salary.

"Hey, we have this problem." "To each their own but it doesn't affect me!"

Why waste your breath to say this?

Really done with this take. Show some solidarity for your peers. So you like working from the office -- good for you! Do that! But also stand up for your colleagues who don't want that. When your colleagues have fewer choices, when things like this are imposed on them, well, your preferences are not far behind from being managed themselves.

Evolutionary psychology is psuedoscience.

Not sure that "copyleft" is confusing or falling into disuse, I hear people talking about it without confusion pretty often. First time I've heard "reciprocal licensing".

I dunno, it's just a place to store the code, and SourceHut is itself free software. I could put it on Codeberg or something, I guess, but it doesn't really seem like a big deal. Never heard anyone criticize the FSF or GNU for their use of savannah.gnu.org.

I feel like it's pretty explicit:

You are entitled to the use of any free software for any purpose, including commercial use – counter-intuitively, you can sell free software.

There are also sections which go into the utility of copyleft to mitigate some of this.

Might be worth going into more detail in a blog post.

This is addressed a bit here:

https://writefreesoftware.org/blog/free-software-games/#but-...

tl;dr: access to the source code will help people develop cheats but it's not really required, your game's gonna have cheaters unless you do server side cheat mitigations.

Not sure how this comes across as self-serving or what the nature of this protest is, but if you explain it in more detail perhaps I can make a correction.

Commons Clause is non-free. It does not meet freedom 0:

https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/four-freedoms/#0-use-the...

There are also specific comments about non-free source-available software here:

https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/#what-is-source-availabl...

Mollie.

I had the opposite issue -- something like 90% of genuine payments on my account are rejected by the fraud detector on the first try and have to be retried daily for several days before going through. I exchanged over a hundred emails with support in which they read the card testing script to me, tried to upsell me on "better" fraud management tools, disregarded any details I provided to show that the activity was non-fraudulent, gave me no insights into how the fraud detector worked or why it might be giving false positives, and refused to escalate my ticket anywhere. I had to beg to be put through to an engineer who knew anything about it, and still I couldn't get past front line support. Long gone are the days where you can talk to a Stripe engineer on IRC. Really badly soured me on Stripe and I started working on plans to move away from the platform entirely.

I have also written a more comprehensive resource here:

https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/participate/choose-a-lic...

I take pride in making my websites accessible for everyone regardless of the monetary incentive to do so, and to make inaccessible websites simply because you don't think there's money in it is very shameful.

Not saying that hamburger menus can or cannot be accessible; just saying that, as an engineer, you really have an obligation to make something that is accessible. This is a basic, non-negotiable requirement for all software.

https://www.polygon.com/23695923/mtg-aftermath-pinkerton-rai...

This website's GDPR pop-up is unlawful.

1. More clicks to opt-out than in

2. "Legitimate interest" is made up

3. Having to untick options one a time is illegal

It would range from unfortunate to a non-issue. The entire flight is not expected to be successful, the purpose is data gathering. The worst case scenario is that it fails on the pad and damages the launch infrastructure, which would be a huge setback to the project. If it fails anywhere else it's probably fine.

The cheapest and most popular rocket today in terms of cost per kilogram sent to low-earth-orbit is the SpaceX Falcon 9, which is estimated to cost about $2700/kg. If the Starship meets its goals, it will cost $10/kg to LEO. It has a payload capacity and infrastructure which can economically deliver massive payloads to any solid surface in the solar system. It could send three full-sized bulldozers to Mars in a single trip. This is the largest scale space project ever conceived and portents a major shake-up to the space industry and a big step towards establishing a permanent human presence off Earth.

Strongly agreed. Unwinding with libunwind, i.e. DWARF, is way, way more complex. A simple linked list is much better for the common use-cases.

GCC has had upstream support for RISC-V for ages, and your typical cross or native GNU toolchain (via your distros or otherwise) supports it.

I am a kernel hacker, and I have worked with io_uring, and I can safely judge that it is very good -- but the main issue is that it represents a totally different approach to I/O (and syscalls generally, which are just I/O in other words), which is going to take the ecosystem a while to reform around. Note that the sample code in the OP's article is much more complex than the traditional approach. It's also very Linux-specific, so any software which takes advantage of it will be less portable or will have to write multiple I/O backends. It's also nontrivial to understand and use effectively, so adding good io_uring support to a project is an effort.

The right leaders are (1) grade A hackers who (2) don't make women feel uncomfortable, selected from a pool which does not arbitrarily filter for skin tone et al. Bonus, we could even consider cultivating an environment where more people feel safe, represented, and included, and if they learn how to be grade A hackers in this environment we can expand our volunteer pool to include the majority of Earth's population that is not an English-speaking white cishet man.

Fair supposition, but lighthouse controls for latency and throughput and the same tests have been run from various parts of the world by various parties with indistinguishable results. Feel free to run them on your own network, it's pretty straightforward:

https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/forgeperf

Takes about an hour though.

Couldn't say, but I do think Codeberg's performance is anecdotally reasonable and I'm fond of their ideals and practices.

fwiw there's a bug in the system which updates this page and it has grown rather stale. (author of this website)

Many of the other comments are missing the point. It's ultimately because there are a lot of desperate people in SF. The bay area has the highest homelessness incidence in the country. Mental health services are poor to non-existent. The city is full of people with no options, no healthcare, and no support system. We could criminalize homelessness even more, and brutalize the desperate with more police interventions, but that's a lazy and unsympathetic explanation for why this is happening. Society has failed the poor and SF is exhibit A.

If the bus is faster and more convenient, more people will use it. Get cars out of city centers and reduce parking, and increase transit access -- more tram and bus routes with priority access through traffic, separated cycle routes, metro and long distance rail, etc. In my home city of Amsterdam it works very well -- over half of all travel is by bike alone.

Prioritization of public transit over EVs is a policy issue which is facilitated at the voting booth. We need fewer EV subsidies (or targeted to more important EV markets) and greater public investment in transit. I'm not saying that you shouldn't buy a new EV in favor of taking your city's crappy bus service and walking a mile in the rain. I'm saying that your city should invest in making the bus a better choice than your car so that you want to use it; society should set up the incentives accordingly.

As the saying goes, public transit succeeds not when the poor can afford the bus, but when the wealthy choose the bus.

I mean the bigger issue is that cars and trucks aren't going away and EVs are clearly important, but the much more important problem is investing in public transit, especially in the United States. We don't need everyone to "transition" to EVs -- we need everyone to transition to trains.