marcinzm

I mean, Spline seems to do the same thing if your company makes enough money:

>Spine Enterprise is required for businesses with $500,000 USD or more annual revenue. The license allows Spine Enterprise to be used by the specified number of users for a period of one year. All updates are provided during this time. After one year, Spine Enterprise must be licensed again to continue using Spine Enterprise.

> I also think they are underrated

Not sure if one can call a set of drugs that are so in demand as to be basically impossible to get at times underrated. Possibly random people online say otherwise but the market says the opposite very strongly.

My main reason to avoid Jax is Google. Google doesn't provide good support even for things you pay them for. They do things because they want to, to get their internal promotions, irrespective of their customers or the impact on them.

Dresden lost about 6 square km utterly. Warsaw lost 100+ square km utterly.

Summarize clearly means something different to the author and the people who think the model results are good. Everyone expects different things. Most people are used to others knowing their preferences and adjusting over time. Models do not unless you tell them.

I agree.

For example, looking at the ChatGPT link the author has, the model loaded 5 pages besides the one the author wanted. That clearly is going to cause some issues but the author didn't modify the prompt to prevent it. It was also a misspelled five (?) word prompt.

I don't see how you can draw conclusions from a model not reading your mind when you give it basically no instructions.

You need to treat models like an new hire you're delegating to and not an omniscient being that reads your intent on it's own.

Why does responsibility require or deserve more compensation? You're stating something as if it was a law of the universe but provide no reasoning.

I've run many teams like this and have generally received good feedback from my teams. It's pretty simple in my experience. Don't punish people for making generally sound decisions that end in failure. Reward them for decisions that end in success. The issue is that managers need to eat some of the risk of those failures although it is offset by the benefit of the team's successes. Few managers are actually able to do this versus trying to dump all the risk somewhere else (usually onto their teams). But if you can maintain a management layer like that then it's amazing.

So the answer is "no."

This isn't reddit. People will downvote and flag far reaching toxically negative comments about a company the poster has no actual experience with. As they should.

Do you have any first hand experience or writing from those who did have such experience to this being the case?

Not everyone is afraid of responsibility simply because it's responsibility.

> Another requirement for this to work well is that management (e.g. the CEO or other leaders) are able to lay down a broad strategy for the people of the company to execute on. If the leadership has no strategy then tactical decisions can not be made properly. They also need to make sure there's coordination and structure.

In my experience this isn't a core requirement so much as the ability to discern if a proposed strategy is good or not based on first hand experience. In other words, the ability to spot very well written bullshit yourself without relying on anyone else's perception of it being bullshit or not. If you need to rely on other people's opinions or the way a proposal is written or something else then it will not work. It's very rare for this to be the case at a larger or public company. Even if the CEO has this ability if the board doesn't then it will be the same.

VC returns are overall much worse than the S&P 500. The top firms are potentially better but that's a very limited investment pool. Softbank has shown what happens if you try the VC approach with a massive pool. Not good returns. The core value of VC has historically been due to it being uncorrelated with the stock market. That allows it to be a risk hedge for investors. The perception is that it is no longer uncorrelated so even that value is mostly gone.

The US government invests in growing the economy, or tries to, which increase tax revenue which gives the government more money.

edit: Also it's not that top VCs are better at finding investment but rather that their social capital means they provide values to companies beyond the investment money. As a result companies that are doing well which choose to take money from top VCs versus other VCs. As a result the model doesn't scale since there's a limited pool of top companies to invest in.

Isn't the US basically the same? The US government gives massive subsidies, tax breaks or just has the military buy components for 10x the price (to offset commercial loses and R&D).

The FUTO license does not allow for the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code. It allows it for certain groups and activities but that is the same as not allowing it.

> You may use or modify the software only for non-commercial purposes such as personal use for research, experiment, and testing for the benefit of public knowledge, personal study, private entertainment, hobby projects, amateur pursuits, or religious observance, all without any anticipated commercial application.

This severely limits the freedom to modify the software or even use it as only certain ways of modifying it are allowed.

> Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others.

This limits the ability to modify the software in any situation.

> I do think it would be more accurate to claim that software with terms limiting commercial exploitation is “open-source” per the original definition, but is not in compliance with the OSI’s Open Source Definition (OSD)

No it wouldn't be. You can read all the things said regarding free software for more history since open source was per it's original definition merely a renaming of free software.

The author of the term according to their own account merely coined a new term for the existing concepts covered by free software. Those concepts as of 1998 were:

- The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs.

- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can share with your neighbor.

- The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185518/http://www.gnu.or...

Those are absolutes that apply to everyone. Period. If you can't release improvements because you are a commercial entity then that means the third freedom is restricted. That means it's not free software.

The FSF also covered the ability to charge for distributing copies as long as those freedoms were not lost in the process:

https://web.archive.org/web/19980126190125/http://www.gnu.or...

These are absolutely not kept by a license such as FUTO that restricts these freedoms to certain groups and certain types of activities.

As long as you keep the previous license text somewhere and note what it applies to then I don't see the problem? FUTO does both in the NOTICE file:

>The license below applies only to the original AOSP keyboard code, which is up to commit d847619a2b48945465f840b8d81644fa455cc115. > Copyright (c) 2008, The Android Open Source Project

> Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");

> you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.

> ...

The inventor merely put a new name onto the existing free software terminology. By her own account she did not invent a new category of software but merely renamed it. As a result taking her words out of context is disingenuous because she and everyone else would assume all existing free software definitions still apply unless otherwise noted. Which is defined as:

> But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

The freedom to charge for modified versions was always there.

A unit being used for short term rental may as well not exist.

> military security

Wasn't that NATO (aka mostly the US)?

The US already runs two government healthcare programs. There are 65 million people in Medicare and 83 million in Medicaid. For less money per patient than private insurance.

Billionaires making more money sure helps pay my hospital bills.

Should make a blog post but in short:

- Every service is deployed via a Helm chart and using containers

- GitHub actions build the container and deploy the helm chart

Some of the details that matter:

- ACK is used to create AWS services (RDS, Redis, etc.) via Helm charts (we also have a container option for helm charts as it's faster and less expensive)

- External Secrets is used to create secrets in the new namespace and also do things like generate RDS passwords

- ExternalDNS creates DNS entries in Route53 from the Ingress objects

- Namespace name is generated automatically from the branch name

- Docker images use the git hash for the tag

Some things that are choices:

- Monorepo although each service aims to be as self-contained as possible.

- Docker context is the git root as this allows for a service to include shared libraries from the repo when creating a container. This is for case where we break the previous rule.

Same. The simple fact that every PR can deploy a full stack, including RDS and managed Redis if desired, automatically in it's own namespace with proper DNS pointing to services is a massive win for us. As in, if you label the PR then it all happens automatically and then it all shuts down automatically when the PR is closed.

So needing to get yearly re-certifications in Leetcode questions is viewed as preferably by you than having to only study them for interviews? And spending 10+ hours on coding exercises, un-paid, per job is also seen as preferably by you to the current status on top of the yearly Leetcode certification? On top of a full panel of behavioral interviews? Plus needing to take an IQ style assessment online before each job (see the second item on my list)?

I'll take having to study Leetcode every few years over all of that any day of the week.

> Unlike airline pilots (or I'm certain many other professions), every company in the valley insists on re-interviewing a candidate in their own custom and unique way, instead of trusting some sort of an industry-wide certificate only achievable through a standardized test. Wonder if this will ever be solved.

The airplane pilot interview process on top of the standardized government certifications includes:

- On-line application (resume and cover letter)

- On-line Psychometric/Aptitude testing (sometimes this is hands-on, on site for some airlines)

- Video Interview, SKYPE or Telephone interview

- Assessment Day (includes: Technical Questions / Panel Behavioral Interview / Scenario Based Questions / Flight Planning Exercise and sometimes a Clinical Assessment)

- Sim Test

- Referee Check

- Medical Check

The exact details differ by airline and I'm assuming the risk profile of the cargo (ie: passengers or not).

Gosh, not so different from software engineers, is it? Except you also need to do a bunch of bureaucratic certifications on top of that.

Being stuck one the side of a pitch black road because your eye glass batteries run out or you dropped them.

At the bottom of the rate curve a few years ago a 30 year fixed rate was 2.8%, a 5/1 adjustable rate was 2.5%, and a 15 year fixed was 2.1%.

As I understand it, the Canada housing market is significantly more broken than the US one overall:

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2023/09/the-u-s-housing-mar...

Also, isn't there now a massive concern about large scale loan defaults and bankruptcies the next time mortgage rates reset in Canada?

> I am pointing at the social and professional stigma around saying anything less than positive about anything related to vaccines.

No, you're extrapolating those to wide scale second and third order impact that you have no data or logical baseline to support. Second and third order impacts related to vaccines that override many other higher priorities for short term decision making. You're claiming that a medical professional who doesn't speak out about vaccines will also look at someone having a medical condition, look up their vaccination records, look at if this condition may be related to vaccines, and then change the medical diagnosis they write to not put that condition on their medical record. Endangering the patient's very life through an incorrect medical record. A condition that actually happens more often in those without vaccines that get covid. A condition that happens significantly often on it's own with or without covid or vaccines being involved. Not just a few people but a majority of people to the point of drastically impacting the calculated prevalence of the disease.

I'm not even sure wha to call that mindset. I said conspiracy because the alternatives are even less flattering.

> Your response is sort of proof of this: I said something less than positive about vaccines and now you think I'm a conspiracy theorist.

No, I called you that because your argument is downright insane and I called you a conspiracy theorist because instead of reflecting on that your response is to call me as part of the conspiracy for merely calling you out.