emacsen

I'm confused at the problem this is meant to solve.

The about page talks about fragmented communication leading to overload and complexity, but it seems this communication platform sits alongside others, not interfacing to them.

That means everyone needs to use RelayBeam to communicate?

And it also seems like the name doesn't reflect what it does, as it's not relaying message?

Also, ports aren't dynamic. You can have joe@work but if the boss messages you about a specific project, you're still stuck looking at all the messages in the @work port?

If so, I'm not sure what this will solve.

EA still had to make deals with each club individually to use their brand and likeness.

This deal was to use World Cup and to call their game "FIFA" as in "FIFA 23".

It didn't take much for this to have been a success.

FIFA wanted $150 million per year. That's on top of all the money EA has to spend licensing with all the various clubs which gives them access to their brands, players, etc.

It was money exclusively going to FIFA for the name FIFA, and with it a whole host of restrictions as the article mentions, but also some suspect some that the article doesn't mention.

The only anxiety here is that this is EA's biggest cash cow. It brings in literal billions in revenue. It's their consistent money maker that gets them through dry economic seasons and lets them front cash on more experimental titles.

Ultimately all they had to do to succeed was bring in the same revenue as last year - $150 million and it's a success financial, but instead they threw the money they would have thrown at FIFA towards marketing and got a bigger bang for their buck.

The article mentions single digit revenue increases; that may seem small, until we remember that 5% of 2 billion USD is $100m.

I'm curious as to your thoughts around Swarm.

My concern around Swarm is around the Docker corporation, which appears to be struggling.

As a competitor, we have Nomad, but with the recent IBM acquisition, I'm concerned about Nomad's future.

But of course this is in itself a choice of governments.

They could say that for drugs, unless the drug is produced and sold at a reasonable price, the company could lose its patent rights, just as trademark rights must be exercised in order to remain in effect.

These situations are not dealing with natural laws and they can be changed.

As you say it's not a binary.

Insurance providers can negotiate on drug prices, and they can certainly negotiate based on many factors.

In many countries, either the government is the provider or the government works with providers to set a price for drugs, and in doing so, both sides are heavily motivated.

Thanks for the plug on this very old article/topic.

It sounds like you moved to Stardew Valley.

I agree with you, and I'd like to offer two additional thoughts.

Firstly, I believe that one of the reasons these large companies have moved to arbitration is that it lets them get away with more, even if they lose.

If they lose, they only lose money, but the case is sealed, and the judge can't issue an injunction.

If it goes to court, a judge can award more than just money- they can order the business to stop making certain claims. If they continue despite the order, they could be found in contempt of court, and that would be serious.

Secondly, I believe that only criminal liability when there is willful misconduct will deter white collar criminals.

In practice, that means if a company does something bad, their CEO or other board members may go to jail.

I believe this could be a huge deterrent.

Now I have that darn Sesame Street song stuck in my head.

There are chickens in the trees

There are chickens in the trees

Won't you listen to me please

There are chickens in the trees

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCsY3REaADo

This has seemed like the next logical step in education for a while now.

I recently used ChatGPT to help me understand some Kubernetes and Terraform configuration. It was able to talk to me about the configuration and also help me understand some of the larger context- how information flows between the systems, what the terms mean, etc.

It provided direct explanations, and metaphors when I needed it, and let me ask clarifying questions.

This kind of learning system would be especially useful for people like myself who have Learning Disabilities, where once I understand a topic, I can speed ahead, but sometimes I'll just get "stuck", sometimes for days/weeks. Having a tutor can help, but there's a lot of embarrassment and that can lead to anxiety, which can in turn make it harder to learn.

Obviously such a system will need some safeguards around it, but having a system like this be able to both explain and point to primary sources could be a complete game changer for students.

As someone who has also been in an arbitration (though not forced), and had a generally decent outcome, I still understand why consumers dislike these policies.

Court is an essential part of government function that allows two parties to be judged fairly in a dispute. It's the great equalizer- at least in theory.

While the act of going to court with a lawyer is expensive, court itself is not expensive.

Moreover, court cases can be used as precedent for other court cases. Evidence found in one case can be used in another.

Arbitration works very differently.

Firstly, an arbitration clause may allow for the party with more "clout" to specify a less fair arbitration body. While the matter of arbitration fairness is complex, it's certainly not wild speculation that some bodies side more with some kinds of entities than others.

Secondly, arbitration requires up front payment. This can actually be a good thing for consumers in that it forces both parties to pay, but it costs a lot of money- thousands of dollars. Most people aren't going to spend that kind of money.

Thirdly, arbitration is not court, and findings in arbitration can't be used either in court, or in future arbitration cases. This provides an advantage to the big company, since they know what they might face, but each time a consumer goes after them, they're starting essentially from scratch!

Lastly, it precludes collective action. Each Discord user who feels wronged may not have the resources to arbitrate on their own, which is why the courts allow for class action lawsuits. Forced arbitration takes that option away.

As someone who recently for a software developer, I've been reading websites and resumes, and let me offer my two cents, for what it's worth.

I also want to mention that aside from hiring for my team, I've also previously worked with paid interns from Google Summer of Code, both in the mentorship and the selection process.

I'm not someone in a large company, so that made the process of hiring somewhat more open, but if someone send me your website or sent me your CV, I must admit that I don't think I would take it very seriously.

There are generally three things that I look for in a candidate:

1. Is this candidate already familiar with what I need them to do, or would this be a stretch of their skills?

Having the exact experience I need, with the exact tools, etc. is nice but not always necessary or the deciding factor.

2. Does this candidate have credentials that demonstrate their ability to do the job. This might be experience, a degree, of contributing to a FLOSS project in a notable way.

3. Do I think this person will be someone I want to work with?

This is very "fluffy" but demonstrations of both professionalism, and also good communication are key here, as well as harder to measure things like attitude.

Your resume links to a much better resume. The first resume on your website lacks anything "interesting" and if someone sent it, I'd simply pass.

The frozen resume is better, but still quite challenged. Drop the huge logos; they don't impress and they feel "scammy" to me.

I also think that there's some challenges with your English. For example "Backed by 10+ years of experience in the Software Industry." is off. It's not quite gramatically correct, or to be more precise, this gives off scammy vibes. :(

It's not a problem in isolation to have people whose native language isn't English, if you're aiming at an English speaking audience, your resume should be better- spelling, grammar and "culture"-wise.

Then in some of these jobs, describe what you did in a way that's more compelling. For example "Software Development internal to this State institution."

That tells me nothing about the work. Even if it's something boring, you could say "Developed a web based application to manage employee payroll."

My experience has been that when presented with a lack of detail, it equates to a lack of knowledge or participation, which is why I pass over such resumes.

I agree with other posters and suggest you get some coaching in this, both in the resume and perhaps in the interview process.

I hope I wasn't coming across as too negative.

I genuinely think that an introduction with a few user stories would go a long way!

Digging in the docs, it uses words like "inventories" and "operations" which indeed look like a configuration management system, much like Ansible, it's agent-less.

And that's cool- Ansible is a bit of an oddball system, but then I'm still left wondering, why is this better, or why it is better for the author at least?

I've used cfengine, Puppet, Chef, bcfg2 (briefly) and ansible. I want to know what makes this tool different and better. :)

Maybe this is the best thing ever, but the documentation doesn't answer one simple question: What problem is it solving?

It is a configuration management tool, like Ansible?

Is it meant for running one-off commands across the infrastructure, like Salt?

It says it integrates with Terraform, so it's not a provisioning tool...

What does it do different (and presumably better) than other tools?

The Getting Started guide doesn't cover this. The FAQ doesn't cover this, and the Docs doesn't have an Introductory section to cover this.

It's disheartening to find a potentially interesting project, but not really know what it does and how it might fit in your workflow.

Ultimately Swatch Internet Time is tied to UTC, since it's Zurich time and not universal or entirely disconnected from the past.

If the time had been entirely separate or arbitrary that argument would hold, but the time was a normal "24 hour clock" that synced up to the standard day rotation, but centered on Zurich.

Because of that, the choice not to use UTC, but instead to UTC+1 meant that to do a calculation of UTC, which is the standard time measurement for earth, you had to subtract 41.6 beats, which was silly.

I vaguely recall there being a project that essentially used the Swatch algorithm, but switched to UTC, and removed the Swatch name for trademark reasons.

I wish I could find it now, since it did exactly what we're discussing.

The streaming companies downgrade Linux in streaming, so now you have to get a PC with Windows, and deal with that.

It's really not that simple.

Google, Tizen, and WebOS are the major TV players, with Roku also somewhere in the mix.

All three of these companies do some level of surveillance, and yet they, or another proprietary device, are often required to watch streaming services.

You can argue that streaming services are unnecessary, but that means both spending a lot of time and money on physical media, or simply missing out, as many shows are now only showing on streaming, and not broadcast anymore.

So long as the incentives to build and maintain charge stations is private, then profit needs to be on the horizon for operators.

What doesn't have to be on the horizon is high cost for consumers, because you're absolutely right that concern over charging stations is a drag on EV adoption.

There are grants to build EV charging stations, but what's less clear to me are operation grants. Ideally we'd see grants for operation that cover the majority of the cost for a period of time, reduce consumer cost and reward good operation (most stations being open, etc.)

We'd also ideally see incentives for solar installations or other green energy offsets for EV charging stations with grants that phase out.

Grants also would ideally be more about distance from existing charging stations, to incentivize spreading out chargers and rewarding "first movers".

There are still lots of issues with chargers from an operator perspective. While electricity is cheap and cheaper to run than building a gas station, the operating expenses are still there when it comes to maintenance and security, and there's the fact that charging takes significantly longer than filling a tank with gasoline, meaning that one needs more space to service the same number of vehicles.

Some costs do need to be handed back to the consumer, such as cost of using the space at a charging station. If not, then they could become de-facto parking lots.

Fuel cells are not a good solution for small vehicles now, but I think there's an argument to be made fr their use in trucking, where electric vehicles don't make economic sense due to battery weight, poor range, long recharge times, and currently poor towing capacity.

While hydrogen is expensive to produce, difficult to store, and less efficient in transfer than electrochemical batteries, I suspect they'd be a good technology for large fleets of trucks due to weight and range.

Fuel cells can also be made to run on natural gas, which might end up being a good stop-gap, as we already have a strong natural gas production infrastructure and despite its downsides, it's far easier to store than hydrogen.

The argument that the execs must be the one to choose the foam to be liable is a bit silly. While in some white collar crimes, you will find individual actions by execs, such as in banking and tobacco, that's rarely the case.

Here there's evidence of a coverup- of deaths reported and Phillips choosing to not disclose or recall until forced to.

An argument could be made that until that point, there's no action by the executive that is wrong- though again, it's a medical device so it should be held up to high standards. Once the company had reason to believe that their device could be dangerous, it had a duty to act. Executives were surely notified when there was a liability concern, and the decision not to act on them is the trigger event.

Was it the CEO? Maybe not? Phillips is a huge corporation, but I'd venture a guess that even in a company that size, there's a bit of "pass the buck" and higher up executives knew something of the situation, and if someone knew of deaths, they had a responsibility to look into it.

Why punish the company, punish the executives!

Putting a foam they knew to be dangerous into a medical product? Choices not to disclose?

Prosecute executives in jail for manslaughter.

A few executives in prison for a decade or two, having to return all their assets gained, and we'll see less of this type of criminal activity.

Corporate veils are important for some types of activity, but when it comes to the loss of life, and choices made, executives who make 1.5m USD a year (as the Philips CEO does) should be held to a very high standard.

I'd be very interested in a comparison of htmx 2 vs Unpoly, since some of the issues Unpoly mentions seem in direct response to htmx, such as response code handling.

I used to think this a lot, but then I find products that do exactly this and work reliably most of the time by simply asking you "Local Version" or "Server Version". This is what Steam does, what Nextcloud does, what PS5 does, and probably others. It's a naive approach but it seems to work well enough.

Beyond that, you get into complex territory but maybe we've all been overthinking the problem space.

By hard work, I mean the core computational functionality is being done not only by a black box, but by a black box that is openly hostile to private user generated information- something that a home assistant encourages through knowing what a user's preferences are for music, schedule, and so on. This is a common term of art.

As for the issue of weather it's "lost on many", I can't speak for others, but I use proprietary LLMs for certain jobs- but I also understand the risk that I place on myself and others when I do so. On the other side, Voxos.ai's documentation's first section is entitled "Voxos [Beta Release] - Voice Your Desires"- voicing my desires would be to give them to a third party. It's a bad idea.

And instead of simply acknowledging the issues and saying "Yes, we have plans for local LLMs" or "We're looking at a mix of rule based and LLM based systems in the future" or even saying nothing, your response is a mix of ridicule and derision. It's very telling.

The term "Open Source" when applied to these applications is at best confusing and at worst misleading.

While the license of the project may be FLOSS, if all an application is doing is grabbing locally generated input, sending it off to a proprietary third party black box, and then processing the output, the application is primarily glue and the hard work is being done by the proprietary API.

Thus the application adheres to the license of Free/Open Source Software, but not the spirit or motivation, which in this case is primarily independence from third party access to our private data.

By way of analogy, it would be like advertising an electric car that requires a diesel fuel generator inside to charge the battery. Yes, the car may be electric, but is entirely dependent on a machine that only works via fossil fuels.

I've seen a good half dozen "Open Source" applications which work this way and each time it's a bit of a let down.

Not 0%, but a drone center can have a few people operating many drones, so the labor cost is distributed there too.

This is unintuivite at first, but makes sense. As we approach last mile, economies of scale begin to not only diminish, but invert.

Let me put it another way... it's very inefficient to move cargo by a fleet of cars vs a fleet of trucks, and it's even more efficient to move cargo by train.

But it would be terribly inefficient to move that train to your home. A UPS truck is more efficient than a train, and a guy on a bike might be more efficient than a UPS truck, other than labor.

But if we can get an autonomous vehicle, then the labor goes away, and if the delivery drone is electric, then it can largely be very efficient- going point to point in a straight line.

I hadn't thought about it before, but it makes so much sense.