Once upon a time Google used few and non-intrusive ads. The ads were soo well-placed and relevant, that they almost seemed like a service to the user, rather than being forced upon you. Some of us even added exceptions for Google ads in our ad blockers, so we would not miss out.
I miss those days.
No, neutral would be to have 2.1 children. That keeps the population steady.
Individuals choosing not to have kids should pay an extra tax that should go to the ones having children.
Choosing not to have children is a perfecly acceptable individual choice, but the consequence is that you become a net negative for the economy.
Taking on the burden of child-raising is an essential task that is net positive for the economy, which has been way underappreciated for too long.
What he means is, your security considerations here must come from some perceived threat. What kind of threat do you forsee that requires this high level of security?
Usually when you consider security you start with a threat model, describing the scenarios you want to protect your systems from. And based on that you decide the necessary technical security measures that are relevant.
It is time to rename the company. OpenAI is not open anymore, and has not been for a while now.
I agree, it is much more clear. I do like Free also, but it is confusing in English.
It has evolved of cause. One of the sources you referred to, the OSI, has a clear agenda to define the term open source software according to their own definition. They are advocating that we use the term in the more narrow sense as you described, rather than the more original broad sense.
The Wikipedia article basically just cites OSIs definition. If you dig into the talk page on Wikipedia it is clearly a disbuted definition that is currently written.
While I absolutely am a proponent of free, libre or open source software, no matter what we call it, the narrow definition OSI suggests of open source software is still not how most people understand the term.
Narrowing the term open source software the way OSI proposes increases the confusion, it doesn’t help.
You are cherry-picking quite a bit in that Wikipedia article. There is also a whole section discussing the confusion between the terms open source, free and libre.
I would venture that the most commonly understood definition of the term is that open source software simply means what it says, that the source code is openly available. And nothing more.
Free or libre software expresses the intention you describe explicitly, that the recipient is allowed to share and modify the software. Thus removing ambiguity.
Open Source is indeed a term existing for many years, probably a lot longer than you are thinking about. Trying to redefine that as meaning anything more than what is says is what is causing confusion.
Exactly. Also it is interesting how I am getting downvoted while you are getting upvoted - even though we are saying the same thing.
No I am using the term for how it was originally used, back in the free software movement days in the 70s and 80s.
Open source means nothing more than the source beeing open for all to see. What your are describing we called Free Software or later FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) but the open source part is redundant in that acronym.
Also some started using Libre instead of Free, as Free sometimes are confused with Gratis. That is where the expression Free as in Freedom cones from.
If you can look at the source code it is open source.
Mycroft is the closest thing I can think off.
I won’t leave any, ha.
Yes, you are right. But no way in hell am I going to pay for my own coffin.
And when your are done, you get to sleep in one for free.
Factorio
This is absolutely wrong. The spec mandates that USB-C ports provides at least USB 3.1 support. Also USB-C is mandated for USB 3.1.
So to be compliant every USB-C port must support USB 3.1 at least. And you cannot support USB 3.1 with anything other than a USB-C port.
Thanks for posting this, it was a very interesting read.
I supriced me that the author could not compile the kernel with current GCC toolchains. I thought backwards compatability was king in the world of C.
The transformation will be subtle and steady. The hype will burst and crash.
This is just block device over network, it will not allow the use cases OP is asking for. You will still need a filesystem and a file-serving service on top of that.