Flimm

Which video codec did you use? MP4 is just a video container, it's not a video codec. Safari only supports some codecs.

MP4 is just a container format (like .tar or .zip in some ways). The video codec is more important information than the video/audio/subtitle container.

The only practical and widely used definition of open source is the one known as the Open Source Definition published by the OSI.

The set of free/libre licenses (as defined by the FSF) is almost identical to the set of open sources licenses (as defined by the OSI).

The debate within FOSS communities has been between copyleft licenses like the GPL, and permissive licenses like the MIT licence. Both copyleft and permissive licenses are considered free/libre by the FSF, and both of them are considered open source by the OSI.

I don't think that's correct. If server A redirects to server B, then server B does not obtain the IP address of server A, only the IP address of the client. Also, the client does not send a "301 request" to server B, it sends a normal GET request. The 301 code only applies to responses, not requests.

The malicious website can stop the Referer header from being sent by setting the Referrer-Policy header to "no-referrer". Also, redirects apparently wouldn't include a Referer header any way, according to kbolino's comment.

By "swallowed", I thought you meant that Neovim silently deleted your files. I'm glad the context makes it clear that it didn't.

Thank you for considering it! To make something open source, all you need to do is to choose an open source license. Add it as a file to your project.

Here's a good website to help you choose a license: https://choosealicense.com/

Reminder: uBlock and uBlock Origin are different extensions from different developers.

The environment variable you're thinking of is `PYTHONUNBUFFERED`, not `UNBUFFERED` [0]. If you want a generic solution to this problem, try the `unbuffer` command [1].

For anyone who's interested, I recommend reading Julia Evan's article [2] about this problem and its solutions.

[0]: https://docs.python.org/3/using/cmdline.html#envvar-PYTHONUN...

[1]: https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/noble/man1/unbuffer.1.h...

[2]: https://jvns.ca/blog/2024/11/29/why-pipes-get-stuck-bufferin...

setuptools was never part of Python's standard library. I think you're thinking of distutils which was removed from Python in the 3.12 release. You can easily access distutils again by installing a package from PyPI.

Here are the official formatting guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc

How do these non-technical academics even create a PDF file with a name like that?

Both prescriptive standards and descriptive standards have their uses. If POSIX is a prescriptive standard, then maybe another standard should exist that is descriptive.

Yes! Finally! Let's treat filenames with new lines as errors! I'm so delighted with this decision.

For me, fractional scaling on a HiDPI screen is broken on X11, but works well in Wayland. Here's an example from yesterday: I was playing Factorio full-screen, and some of the GUI elements were too large and wouldn't fit it in the screen. I found a Factorio setting that enabled Wayland, and it instantly fixed the problem. Kudos to Factorio for supporting Wayland! You wouldn't think it was needed for a full screen game, but it was.

This looks really cool! Nice

WordPress is licensed under the GPLv2 license (or later), which is an open source license. It is also a free/libre licence.

The OSI is the only widely accepted authority on the definition of open source in software. You can find the open source definition (according to the OSI) here: https://opensource.org/osd The FSF and Richard Stallman have released their definition of free/libre software here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html .

As you can see, the definitions of open source software and free/libre software are almost identical for all intents and purposes. This was not accidental, when the OSI wrote the definition of open source, they derived it from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which was highly influenced by the FSF's Free Software Definition. They wanted to rebrand free/libre software, which keeping the same criteria.

All open source licences are also free/libre licences, and all free/libre licences are also open source licences. The difference between open source and free/libre lies in the differences between the philosophies that the FSF and the OSI promote. The FSF say that using any licences other than free/libre is unethical, whereas the OSI does not comment on using software that is not open source. It's a matter of branding and of connotations.

It's 40% of websites, but bear in mind that not all websites are of equal significance. Some websites are just spam and never receive any visits. If we measured how much time people spend on different websites, I would guess that WordPress wouldn't even reach 5% of time spent web surfing.

Two dictionaries with equal keys and values are considered equal in Python, even if the order of the entries differ. By contrast, two OrderedDict objects are only equal if their respective entries are equal and if their order does not differ.

Even if all cookies were completely disabled in all browsers, current privacy laws like GDPR would still require consent for all the tracking and sharing of private information that companies do through other means, and so websites would probably still display banners to remain in compliance.

The study shows an association, and does not demonstrate a causal link. I think people are likely to misinterpret the warning label.

You're right, I and those who agree with me were the first to ask people to "shut up", in this case, to ask Meta to stop misusing the term open source. And I was the first to say "shut up", and I know that can be inflammatory and disrespectful, so I shouldn't have used it. I'm sorry. We're here in a discussion forum, I want you to express your opinion even it is to complain about my complaints. For what it's worth, your counter-arguments have been stronger and better referenced than any other I have read (for the case of accepting a looser definition of the term open source in the realm of IT).

That's not the only thing that people are complaining about. Even the code is not open source, despite being called open source.

I'll concede that "open source" may mean other things in other contexts. For example, an open source river may mean something in particular to those who study rivers. This thread was not talking about a new context, it was not even talking about the weights of a machine learning model or the licensing of training data, it was talking about the licensing of the code in a particular GitHub repository, llama3.

AI may make copyright obsolete, or it may make copyright more important than ever, but my prediction is that the IT community will lose something of great value if the term "open source" is diluted to include licenses that restrict usage, restrict distribution, and restrict modification. I can understand why people may want to choose somewhat restrictive licenses, just like I can understand why a product may contain gelatin, but I don't like it when the product is mis-labelled as vegan. There are plenty of other terms that could be used, for example, "open" by itself. I'm honestly curious if you would defend a pork product labelled as vegan, or do you just feel that the analogy doesn't apply?

Neither of those usages relate to IT, they both are about sources of intelligence (espionage). Even if they were, the OSI definition won, nobody is using the definitions from 1995 CIA or the 1996 InfoConWar book in the realm of IT, not even Facebook.

The community has the authority to complain about companies mis-labelling their pork products as vegan, even if nobody has a registered trademark on the term vegan. Would you tell people to shut up about that case because they don't have a registered trademark? Likewise, the community has authority to complain about Meta/Facebook mis-labelling code as open source even when they put restrictions on usage. It's not gate-keeping or dictatorship to complain about being misled or being lied to.

No, it's not. The Llama 3 Community License Agreement is not an open source license. Open source licenses need to meet the criteria of the only widely accepted definition of "open source", and that's the one formulated by the OSI [0]. This license has multiple restrictions on use and distribution which make it not open source. I know Facebook keeps calling this stuff open source, maybe in order to get all the good will that open source branding gets you, but that doesn't make it true. It's like a company calling their candy vegan while listing one its ingredients as pork-based gelatin. No matter how many times the company advertises that their product is vegan, it's not, because it doesn't meet the definition of vegan.

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

The GIL doesn't prevent all types of parallelization. You have always been able to use threads or to use async code to make I/O happen in parallel.

Thank you for the summary! (Note: indenting text with two spaces makes it render with a monospaced font on Hacker News, see https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc )

I feel for you, friend. Maybe you could share the essay "Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule" by Paul Graham [0]. It's been somewhat helpful when I've shared it with colleagues.

[0] https://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html

I use LeechBlock NG, for Chrome, Firefox, Edge, as well as Firefox on Android.