jamestanderson

In my experience, police officers leave voice messages.

Huh, I never knew about this! It looks like it's still around. I'll try that next time. Thanks for the tip!

It's really cool to see offline support done well. It can be very frustrating when it's done poorly, or not offered at all.

One of my biggest gripes with the Spotify app is the poor offline support, at least in my experience on Android. I have the bulk of my library downloaded for offline listening, so when I have a spotty network connection like when I'm on the Subway, I'd expect that I can still easily access at least my downloaded songs. Not the case. Spotify, it seems, won't use its local cache until it's thoroughly convinced you're offline, which may take several minutes of waiting for requests to time out. Once Spotify is convinced I'm offline, my downloaded songs will then finally load normally.

My guess is that instead of doing it the way the Kinopio does - by reading from the local cache before fetching the remote data - Spotify does it the other way around.

Anyway, nicely done!

But, we wouldn't have expected the manufacturer to do anything except officially discourage the use of the aftermarket tools.

I think the issue here is that McDonalds was discouraging the use of the tool, not Taylor (the manufacturer).

I'm sad to see this comment, scoffing at an independent creator just selling something cool online. I wonder why this reaction? Is it the imagined profit margin? Or just the choice of words in the listing?

The listing says it's a 43" 4K Samsung display, which a quick look on Amazon shows goes for at least around $270. They also offer free shipping, so shipping is effectively included in the price. I don't know how much walnut or acrylic costs, or desktop CNC's.

The price doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a turnkey complete package, since I don't have the skills or tools to make this myself.

I believe they require contributors to sign their CLA: https://cla.hashicorp.com/

That CLA grants HashiCorp full license over your Copyright, and explicitly allows them to sublicense your contributions[1]. Drew Devault's blog posts[2][3] on this topic are extremely relevant.

[1] > Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to HashiCorp and to recipients of software distributed by HashiCorp a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works.

[2] https://drewdevault.com/2018/10/05/Dont-sign-a-CLA.html

[3] https://drewdevault.com/2023/07/04/Dont-sign-a-CLA-2.html

companies like Amazon abuse FOSS licenses to stand up their own hosted versions of open source projects

This is not an abuse of FOSS licenses. If developers have a problem with this, there are open source licenses that would make this use case less attractive for Amazon, like the AGPL.

All that I get from this is that HashiCorp is no longer an open source company.

However, there are other vendors who take advantage of pure OSS models, and the community work on OSS projects, for their own commercial goals, without providing material contributions back. We don’t believe this is in the spirit of open source.

This is 100% in the spirit of open source. If this is a problem for them, why not adopt an open source license that compels developers to open source their code instead, like the AGPL?

This is purely a way for HashiCorp to ensure they are the only ones who can commercialize these formerly open source projects. Which is fine. But just go closed source, then, and own that, instead of trying to have it both ways.

I got their 10gbps displayport switch to use with switching a single monitor between a Windows desktop PC and an M1 MacBook Pro. I have a 4k@144hz monitor and can get the full framerate and resolution with this setup. I've never had any problems, would highly recommend.

I'm a big fan of this font, I use it every day and have never regretted the purchase. Unfortunately the OP noted they didn't like Iosevka, which I think is pretty visually similar.

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a835af

There is - check out this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33065297

What's your experience with group texting? I've been looking for a dumb-er phone, but I need good group texting support to stay in touch with my family. I've tried phones like the Nokia 3310 and Nokia 225 TA-1282, and have been disappointed in the way they handle group texting.

Wow - really surprised at this move by Netlify. It looks like that's a new policy[1] where a "Member" is not just someone who can log in to the Netlify UI and manage a site, but anyone who can trigger a build.

Relevant quote from the article outlining the policy changes:

For sites connected to private Git repositories on Pro and Business teams, Git contributors will need to be team members in order to trigger builds.

Teams will only be billed for the number of team members. Currently, Git contributors are people who trigger builds on your team’s site(s). Moving forward, in order to trigger builds, Git contributors who aren’t Team Members, such as people in the ‘Contributors via Git’ section, Reviewers, or people not on the team entirely, will need to have their deploy approved by a team Owner.

Once their deploy is approved, they’ll be invited to become a Team Member and can deploy without approval from then on. If their deploy is rejected, their build won’t run and they will not be added as a team member to your monthly bill.

This change does not apply to sites linked to public repositories or sites on Starter or Open Source plan teams.

So it sounds like you could limit your costs by limiting your team Owners.

This pricing doesn't seem like a good value proposition to me. I see Netlify as a web host and CDN which has products very comparable to some of Cloudflare's products. In those spaces billing is generally based on usage, not number of seats.

What you get from Netlify doesn't scale with the number of seats you pay for.

If I have 1 member on the Business plan I'll pay $99/mo and get 1.5TB of bandwidth per month. If I have 5 members on the Business plan, I'll pay $495/mo and still only get 1.5TB of bandwidth. Hardly seems fair or reasonable.

[1] https://answers.netlify.com/t/upcoming-changes-to-netlify-pl...

I also don't put my predictions in writing, but I appreciate those that do. It's easy to look at the state of the world today and say, "Of course. How could it end up any other way?"

Looking at how badly old predictions miss the mark serves as a good reminder that the bets we make today for the future are probably just as wrong.

We're in agreement. :)

this is pretty egregious in that it removes freedoms

The AGPLv3 protects freedoms - the freedoms of the users and recipients of the Software and the License, including other developers. If you combine an Open Source license with the Commons Clause, that is no longer Open Source software, in my view. It's source-available, which is completely different. If a developer adds a Commons Clause to their Open Source license, they have removed freedoms more than any Open Source license ever could.

If you look at the OSI's Open Source Definition[0] it states:

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software [...]

That is completely incompatible with the Commons Clause and others who try to restrict commercial use.

This article contains the biggest confirmations I've seen of my long-held stance that the AGPLv3 was never meant to prevent commercial use

Of course the AGPLv3 was not meant to prevent commercial use. It's an Open Source license - a requirement of such a license is that it must permit commercial use!

The AGPLv3 is very easy to comply with, it's just that so many are unwilling to do so, so people come away thinking the AGPLv3 was meant to prevent commercial use.

I'd recommend this article[1] which talks about this and several other the falsehoods people have come to believe about the AGPLv3.

[0] https://opensource.org/osd

[1] https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html

Developers certainly can place restrictions on how their code is used.

In my view, if developers want to add those restrictions, via the Commons Clause or otherwise, they should not license their work under the AGPLv3 (or other Open Source licenses). It appears the courts do not agree though, at least in this case.

Wasn't the AGPL created to address exactly this loophole?

I'm sure it's 100% worth it for them financially. Me not buying an iPhone because it doesn't have a headphone jack means nothing to them.

I think what will hurt them in the long run is their pattern of user-hostility will start to affect their image. For instance:

* Right to repair gaining steam (Apple now introducing some basic form of parts availability)

* Apple eroding their image as a Privacy company (Apple had to delay their "child safety" tools after public outcry)

* iMessage lock-in (Apple users "bullying" Android users due to Apple's hostile UI choices).

Those are just the recent examples that come to mind.

It'll all add up until Apple has a PR problem that actually does start affecting their bottom line, and then they'll have to make concessions that'll make people happy again.

For one thing, I'd buy an iPhone again.

Same here on Firefox 94.0.1 on MacOS.

I also have privacy.resistFingerprinting enabled, maybe the other commenter does too, and that might muck with things.

Just tested and my reported user-agent is: "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0"

I might install an extension. I have the DuckDuckGo Privacy extension for instance, and use DDG as my primary search engine. But I use Firefox, and it doesn't seem like this company provides a Firefox addon.

It's an interesting choice to launch a search engine, give reasons for using it instead of Google, but also play into the Google quasi-monopoly by not providing a Firefox addon. Hopefully it's coming soon.

To be fair, that was under different ownership. One of the first things the new owners did after the acquisition was to stop that practice.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/4n3e1s/the_state_...

Nothing in the MIT license prevents you from doing that. But the author could disable your access to the repo any time, and once that happens, your fork would be forever out of date I'd expect.

Of course, doing so would make me question why the author released this under a permissive license to begin with.

they know what I want before I do.

Or did they tell you what to want?

In a statement, the bank said: "We always intended to listen to colleague feedback as part of this limited pilot which was intended to tackle issues such as individual over-working as well as raise general productivity."

Riiiight.

NYC is not the most accessible city, and as such you'd have a hard time bringing a cart into many apartment buildings that have steps but don't have a ramp. Even if you manage to bring a cart to the front door of an apartment building, you'd still likely have to deal with a self-closing door which will fight you while trying to pull the cart through. Sorting inside the building is just not feasible.

This was recently featured on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver [1] which also does a good job of covering this issue.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCC8fPQOaxU

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you!