anth_anm

It's stock increases.

It's not so much compensate as much as it is structuring their comp so that they can get away with never actually giving you a raise.

According to the itnernet if you aren't making that by 35, you're a failure.

Yes, but it's less stupid than the alternatives.

Compare it to what microsoft spent before their anti-trust lawsuits.

Don't care, my system is still better.

My design uses paper and pen.

Deployment requires mailing ballots out and having places where people can come in to fill them out.

10 million dollars please.

The counterargument is we could just not write them off.

> HBO Go/Now are fine.

Not really, they are lousy apps.

You can fix that without engaging in the "spew content and see waht sticks" style of netflix.

"we have lots of compute resources and access to software, aren't we awesome?"

and UBI is an excuse to write off the bottom half the population.

All 3 are popular with the HN crowd. Not surprising.

Change the rules please.

or don't and I'm giving Matt Christman a dollar.

I worked for a team that did maintain a fork. It was an insane amount of effort just to keep up with the commits going in.

Microsoft nearly got broken up for a much weaker version of this sort of rule.

It's absurd to complain about pocket and use it as an excuse to use a browser made by fucking google.

Google pays their bribes.

Microsoft didn't.

> The rendering and JavaScript engines do not impact privacy.

Actually they absolutely do. You need to do mitigations against fingerprinting in order to protect privacy.

> Chromium is 99% OSS

OSS but owned totally by google.

I don't believe such a product should get any credit for being OSS. It will never do what the community wants.

Wider AGPL use would fall under aggressive license changes, IMO.

I'm not going to use FOSS that doesn't have a strong community around, at least not for anything major.

I've got a Mustang and I'd like something mch smaller.

So you would rather it be controlled by a very anti-open source for profit corporation nstead?

AWS, in the short term.

In the long term their actions make it impossible to build any sort of business based directly on FOSS. You have to do support, or hosting, or something else.

Guess what, AWS has a lot more money to do both of those things.

and Amazon will keep right on going sucking up code and giving nothing back.

We need aggressive licensing changes.

Hell, API copyright might be necessary to stop this nonsense. We can still have good licensing in that scenario.

They just said "Fuck you, we have more money so we own you now".

Okay, are you glad that Amazon now owns Elasticsearch?

> software that you build with it, other than applications.

I'm no lawyer, but this sounds like complete nonsense.

> It makes smaller scale open source more commercially viable because you won't attract the attention of the providers that would come in a take your business.

Small scale open source isn't technologically viable.

> In the past they haven't seemed to be willing to contribute to the OSS

They are extremely hostile to the idea.

I think Amazon does a much bigger disservice.

> but enough open source will ensure that software licensing is not a sustainable model to seek rent

So your solution to this is to just make it so no one can make money doing work.

Except Jeff. Jeff gets all the money.

Then maybe FOSS was a mistake.

You're incredibly naive and I hope you don't end up feeling screwed over by one of the big companies in a few years.