renlo

That means that rightsholders can expect at least $3,000 per title (less costs and fees), which will be shared among the rightsholders for that title (if there is more than one rightsholder)

if there is more than one rightsholder

Again, a publisher will have a whole catalog of books / titles, a non-negligible portion of that the publisher will own the copyright to (no one to split it with). There's all kinds of books outside of novels, there's media tie-ins, IP franchise books (ie Star Wars), childrens books, textbooks / reference materials, etc etc etc. Yes, with novels the author tends to own the copyright, but you're forgetting all of the other kinds of books out there.

For the downvotes, my response is to read: https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/wh...

If there is a current publisher(s) (which still possesses an exclusive license), the author(s) will split the $3000 with the publisher. Any co-authors will share the author portion and, if there are multiple publishers (e.g., different publishers have exclusive rights to different formats), they will share the publisher portion. Assume that the co-authors and co-publishers will share the portion equally unless their contracts provide otherwise. The standard default split between publishers and authors of noneducational texts is 50/50, as described below. Authors who are the sole rightsholder in a work—such as self-published authors and authors whose rights have reverted or where the contracts have otherwise terminated—will receive the full award amount.

It is split between the publisher and the author, also publishers will have a large catalog of books they will submit, an author typically will only have a few -- the payout will be going to the lawyers and mostly to publishers.

remarkable / remarkable2 also work with KOReader. KOReader provides a very good ereader experience - can import dictionaries, export word lists (ie it tracks words you look up), and supports numerous ebook formats and lets you modify the padding/margins/layout. A very good piece of open source software

the irony is that all of this money will go to rent-seeking publishers who won't pass it on to the artists; basically a dispute between the wealthy you're upset with

1500 years

I’m curious what the Lindy Effect would mean in this case

When conditions are adverse, i.e. fog, heavy rain, the system simply shuts off and reverts back to manual driving.

I also own a Tesla, and there is no indication shown to the user that FSD's vision is degraded. They need to add this in.

For example, numerous times I have been driving my Tesla with FSD activated with ostensibly a clean and clear windshield when suddenly the car will do the "clean the windshield in front of the camera routine" without any indication that the car's camera is degraded. If people haven't seen this "clean the windshield routine", the wiper fluid is dispensed and the wiper will vigorously wipe in front of the camera only -- the rest of the windshield only gets a cursory wipe.

This indicates to me that the camera has poor visibility and I am not informed or aware of this as a driver, which is concerning. I am often curious if there is a thin occluding film on the windshield in the camera box in front of the camera, or something that has degraded FSD's vision, but they do not give you the ability to view the camera feed, nor do they notify you that the vision is degraded. I think a "thin occluding film" may be in the camera box because my normal windshield outside of the camera box started to show a thin chemical film after a couple of months, which apparently (according to a Google search) happens when a new car off-gasses, adding a thin film of chemical byproduct to the windshield. This is my first new car so I've no idea if this is normal or not.

I use this tool, which allows one to select the branches to delete instead of just deleting everything: https://github.com/stefanwille/git-branch-delete

Unfortunately its name makes it hard to search for and find.

“We have facts, they have falsities”. I think the crux of the issue here is that facts don’t exist in reality, they are subjective by their very nature. So we have on one side those who understand this, and absolutists like yourself who believe facts are somehow unimpugnable and not subjective. Well, China has their own facts, you have yours, I have mine, and we can only arrive at a fact by curating experiential events. For example, a photograph is not fact, it is evidence of an event surely, but it can be manipulated or omit many things (it is a projection, visible light spectrum only, temporally biased, easily editable these days [even in Stalin’s days]), and I don’t want to speak for you but I’d wager you’d consider it as factual.

The key is to work around the text input. If you want to say "kill myself", you input "kill my" then complete the "self" portion by pressing delete (remove space), then s-e-l-f. I feel like most of my typing time is spent making these corrections, as it's very quick to swipe but corrections are almost always necessary and they are an order of magnitude slower. Yesterday for example I tried to swipe "succession" but it really wanted to output "secession", so I change my strategy to "success" (it really liked this word), then delete (remove space), i-o-n.

I think every time I swipe I need to do at least one correction like this, where I type one similarly spelled word with as minimum an edit distance as I can think of in the moment, then do a manual correction.

Most eye opening experience in my personal development was attending HR conferences (we sold an HR product but I am an engineer), where speakers were openly saying this out loud. I know you won’t believe me given your statement, but using codewords they said they were trying to hire “diverse candidates”, retain “diverse candidates”, explicitly mark “non-diverse candidates” leaving as non-regrettable churn, filtering and searching for diverse employees within the company to fast track for promotion, etc. I was in shock how brazenly they were saying the quiet part out loud, and breaking the law. This was 10 years ago, there were no repercussions for it, in fact they were all lauded.

Localstack makes that pretty easy. Before Localstack I had a pre-staging environment (dev) target I would deploy to. Their free/community offering includes a Lambda environment; you deploy your dev "Lambda" locally to docker, using the same terraform / deploy flow you'd normally use but pointed at a Localstack server which mimics the AWS API instead. Some of their other offerings require you to pay though (Cloudfront, ECS, others) and I don't use those, yet at least.

The trouble is that "fast" doesn't mean anything without a point of comparison.

This is what people are missing. Even those "slow" apps are faster than their alternatives. People demand and seek out "fast", and I think the OP article misses this.

Even the "slow" applications are faster than their alternatives or have an edge in terms of speed for why people use them. In other words, people here say "well wait a second, I see people using slow apps all the time! People don't care about speed!", without realizing that the user has already optimized for speed for their use case. Maybe they use app A which is 50% as fast as app B, but app A is available on their toolbar right now, and to even know that app B exists and to install it and learn how to use it would require numerous hours of ramp up time. If the user was presented with app A and app B side by side, all things equal, they will choose B every time. There's proficiency and familiarity; if B is only 5% faster than A, but switching to B has an upfront cost in days to able to utilize that speed, well that is a hidden speed cost and why the user will choose A until B makes it worth it.

Speed is almost always the universal characteristic people select for, all things equal. Just because something faster exists, and it's niche, and hard to use (not equal for comparison to the common "slow" option people are familiar with), it doesn't mean that people reject speed, they just don't want to spend time learning the new thing, because it is _slower_ to learn how to use the new thing at first.

as a layman, wouldn't you need a more-accurate clock to measure the accuracy of a clock? How is clock accuracy measured when the clock is the most accurate clock?

felt more like an article legitimizing an origin myth than authorship

Great video, I really enjoyed how down to earth it was. It reminded me of The Secret Life of Machines [1], where we get to peek behind the curtain and see how seemingly "magical" machines (in your case a digital computer) emerges from simple fundamental concepts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Machines

Spotify used to have a "dislike" button for their Discover Weekly which helped with pruning music you don't like, but with the natural law of tech enshitification they removed that feature a month ago.

    function x() {/* ... */}
    const x = function() {/* ... */}
    const x = function foo() {/* ... */}
    const x = (function() {/* ... */}).bind(this)
    const x = (function foo() {/* ... */}).bind(this)
    const x = () => {/* ... */}
    const x = () => /* ... */

Agree that the repository/service pattern is a good way to adhere to separation of concerns and make refactoring and readability easier.

That said, I really disagree with any precommit checks. Committing code should be thought of as just saving the code, checks should be run before merging code not saving code. It'd be like Clippy preventing you from saving a Word document because you have a spelling error. It's a frustrating experience.

I can make sure my code is good before I submit it for review, not when I'm just trying to make sure my work has been saved so I can continue working on it later (commit).

He was saying that Uber will no longer operate in NL/EU, the pining was for "equal access to US services", not your data. FWIW, I am annoyed myself about having to accept GDPR popups on every website I visit, so I too pine for a day where US companies have nothing to do with "EU citizens".

As was LinkedIn, who was forced to rate stop limiting / IP-banning scrapers for public pages.

I think the issue primarily is that there are two frames of reference used: "earlier" / "later" terms use the absolute frame of reference (time progressing forward), the numerical terms ("100s" / "4th century") are relative to the common era (higher BCE numbers mean further back in time).

To me it is confusing that they've mixed the two, even though it is convention to do so.

Not to be pedantic but I was genuinely confused by this statement:

He lived and wrote in the late 200s and early 100s BCE

Shouldn't this instead be phrased as:

He lived and wrote in the early 200s and late 100s BCE

He was born in 254 BCE and died in 184 BCE, he lived from the mid 200s BCE, started writing in the _early_ 200s BCE, and died in the _late_ 100s BCE.

Who ever answers these questions truthfully though? It seems that this just tests for the ability to spin yarn at the interviewer.

I was recently asked this question, and while I've had some disagreements with coworkers over minor things, I've never had a major disagreement that was noteworthy, so I (to my inevitable detriment) said: "Nothing really comes to mind at the moment but if something like that were to happen, I'd do X, Y, and Z". Given the reaction from the interviewer I doubt I passed. I still have 2 more interviews with this company.

non paywalled, found on Reddit: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/why-it-s-hard-to-g...

It shows that family/environment influences life outcomes

Not to nitpick but this statement implies causation (family environment causes life outcome) which you contradict right after.

Sorry to sound obtuse, but, I asked because it may seem obvious to you, but it's not so obvious to me that there will be much improvement. I've seen data that indicates that outcomes are not changed (much) when those early interventions / "investments" are made. There is _an_ improvement, but not to the level people expect. Like a person's height, access to high quality food will only do so much; some people are just going to have short stature however much money you invest into making sure they have access to nutritious meals.

Where in the data does it indicate that it's possible to "break the cycle"?

if `twitter.com` is mapped to `x.com`, then a link `carfatwitter.com` will go to the non-malicious `carfax.com`, so registering `carfatwitter.com` seems to be just a stunt. When would `carfax.com` redirect to `carfatwitter.com`? Urls with `twitter.com` in the name are affected, not urls with `x.com` in the name.

edit: from the responses looks like I was wrong; the urls still point to `carfatwitter.com`. Leaving my comment up in case others were confused like me.

Much easier now though, with a web based medium where the content host can "revise" the content for everyone without needing to physically go out and find old copies to burn.

Thank you for creating the project! Oddly enough I came across fck-nat last week and have been looking into incorporating it into my project app to avoid paying the $30+ per month for the managed solution.

As someone who is new to setting up VPCs and networking, how does this work? I was so curious I even tried to query ChatGPT about it a couple of days ago but I got a less than satisfactory answer.

Is the secret to making it work disabling the "source destination check"? Say a host in the private subnet wants to connect to a host on the internet, it tries to connect to <PublicIP>, and sends some IP packets over the subnet via the ENI, does the VPC subnet act like an old-school ethernet connection where fck-nat gets the IP packets for <PublicIP> (source/dest is disabled so it receives the packets) and then it forwards it to the internet gateway and does the network address translations when it receives a response packet?

I think usage statistics tend to require more retention time to discover user behavior and understand how to optimize revenue. In the general case people probably won't care much whether their widget was running at X% CPU on Dec 5th 2019 but they might care more about what percent of users did Y action on that date. When I worked on an observability team (not as an expert but as a general swe) we had two metrics pipelines; one was strictly usage statistics which came from the client, the other was purely server metrics but a subset of them were considered usage metrics which were aggregated and sent down with the client metrics for the folks upstairs.