tempnow987

Correct.

Historically one could contribute to a GPL project (potentially on a significant level for a corp) but wouldn't worry too much about using it in your own product that was potentially locked down - ie, DRM / motor duty cycle control, rev limits etc.

Linus / Linux have a long history of being pretty relaxed about your use cases, with the one key provision that you share your code.

Now, the group of people who can sue you is much larger. And some of them (conservancy in particular) may have views that don't align with your GPLv2 interpretation (particularly around tivoization / lock down issues for hardware devices). So if you are contributing too and shipping GPLv2 code - yes, you as the distributor of a larger body of code probably have a higher risk now of being sued.

That's what's so new about this. There is now a contract (not copyright) element - which binds you and the recipients of your code.

If you contribute to an open source project, then use that code in for example a locked down device, a user / conservancy who views that as a violation of GPL can sue you. That's important because historically developers on linux kernel have not agreed with conservancy views on things like encryption keys, and so have not pursued these types of claims and were somewhat unlikely to fully litigate claims against other contributors especially beyond just sharing code back.

As the conservancy notes, the universe of potential claimants (even with bogus claims) is now much much larger.

That's the change here. Historically the GPL distribution language was a condition of the copyright license, so exactly as you said, no one could sue you because there was no separate contract element to end users binding them into a contract with anyone.

That is what is so exciting / different about this. When you make available software under the GPL, you have now entered into a CONTRACT (not copyright anymore) with all users that binds you to the terms of the GPL and gives them a right to sue for violations of THEIR independent rights.

This is the power of this new ruling, they can then sue you or anyone for breaking this agreement with them. Obviously will take some experience to see how far this can be taken. My understanding is the conservancy may want to try to leverage this to try to get GPLv3 effects into GPLv2 and a few other things the developers of for example Linux are not so hot on.

Agreed.

Will be interesting to see where development / contributions by various players go in the future.

Then this will be a good result.

You of course may be sued yourself if you have a project using GPL'ed code that doesn't comply with the the current view of GPL (ie, release of encryption keys) or if you infringe your own GPL copyright in some proprietary project (ie, GPL code where user was promised access is in something that you don't want available broadly).

This is all good for users for sure for things like open core projects and projects that used to be open but moved away etc

In the old model in that case you could assign or work with any of the litigation groups already doing the work needed to allow them to sue on your behalf.

Downstream users can also of course sue you if you work on a project with a few other people under the GPL even if they didn't write any code or contribute.

Wow - to say this is a major major result in an understatement. This is going to turn GPL litigation on its head, and allow more activist type folks to pursue cases aggressively. On the developer side I can see a move away from GPL - as adding third parties into this is going to be pretty unappealing for some developers.

I think historically distribution of source code was seen as a condition of the copyright license (which meant copyright holders enforced), not as a separate contract right available to third parties (which would mean users and other can go after a variety of claims).

My wife had a great time breastfeeding our first. Guy could eat and did. Zero issues.

Second, she needs a bottle to supplement, and even there she is not as great an eater.

The reality - fed is best in my view.

If you are getting so into breastmilk hype you are letting your kid get hungry I think that's a bad call?

The only irony is that one of the richest countries in the world has supply issues for what may be a critical item for children.

Good thing we are being told repeatedly that inflation and supply chain issues are "transitory", whatever that means. Rumor has it that there might be a strike on west coast ports? That should help sort things out!

A ponzi is if there is not actual asset backing the ponzi "values". Ie, the "stablecoin" will not actually hold value.

Wasn't Cashberry or something like this? Russian based? Ultimately no assets behind it, so when the music stopped they couldn't redeem the values.

It is not easy for a smaller tech company (often happy with their relatively lean stack) to integrate into a big company and its stack if integration was ever a goal (not sure it was). The hassle factor in a big company is 2x to do something, and you often have 1/2 the drive / vision / motivation.

I do wonder though, do folks not have super clear plans for these acquisitions? They sometimes stagnate surprisingly. We used a smallish product (maybe 5K/year) they get acquired, they dropped a key feature and replaced it with a paid but not compatible / worse feature, then reached out with a sales person to talk about why we weren't using it and rolled our own replacement. I mean, huh? Of all the strategies this was going to be it?

Instagram a notable exception here.

Right, but wasn't this a red bull thing? They do international stuff all the time. Go to columbia, go somewhere else.

There are folks flying bush and other planes into and out of crazy areas all day long without a hint of this level of oversight in other countries - from missionaries to folks moving stuff outside of customs etc.

I looked at design of this stunt. I can think of MANY more dangerous things out there in the world.

Best might have been to do this stunt outside of FAA jurisdiction.

I love wired connectections.

The LATENCY is noticeably better. If you are on a zoom call with both parties on headsets and on wired connections (so no echo cancellation needed) or other audio connections I find it noticeably better (less stepping on each other etc).

I have AT&T's fiber product (2 Gbps) and the office has their biz product (300 Mbps) and latency between is good and to google et al is great (< 10 ms in almost all situations).

You do realize that google makes MOST of its money from corps (through marketing crap to you).

Apple incentives are somewhat better aligned with consumers, as they make MOST of their money selling consumers actual stuff, including incredibly hardware!

Does netflix allow reviews? I'm a big user of reviews, both good and bad, but some of these platforms have stopped showing reviews so it makes it really hard to evaluate if something might be worth watching.

I don't not watch because a bad review necessarily because I look to see if the complaint is about something I care a lot about

Uhh, NFC devices really didn't work with google's service. This is not "cargo cult", this is pure and total google / android stupidity. Every time you claim it's just cargo cult you underestimate apple here.

Google had Google Wallet. Yes, it came out first, but then there was android pay. Then there was google pay send. Then there was Google Pay - which was a mishmash of chrome autofill and an actual app. Internationally its even more confusing, especially in india. Google pay picked up messaging (!!) explore for personalized ads (ugh). There was also peer to peer features.

Then they did a NEW google pay (2020?) that got rid of google accounts (!!!) and uses just your phone number, and you can't import folks you paid from previous app (!!!!). They have a combination of barcodes - 1d and 2d etc etc.

I'm not sure what the latest is. Android Pay taking over? Google Pay taking over? Going back to google wallet?

Keep on going on about the apple "cargo cult". I pay attention to this space a bit, and even I'm confused.

"Apple are infamous for taking someone else's idea, giving it a bit more polish, than marketing it as though they came up with it in the first place."

This made me laugh. I bought the first iphone - full cash price - no contract, no crap.

When I read this stuff you just realize how underestimated apple is and was.

I thought they paid him something in the 10's of millions range to bring him on through periscope?

I thought the comp packages were more in the single digit millions range for these folks, and stock oriented. My guess is they've taken bigger losses on just the general stock market decline than most, though for those who hold twitter I personally think Elon is wildly overpaying (as usual, see solar city) and they will make out like bandits as a result there.

My own guess is that this is doubtful that Musk drove this.

That said, he is a very large shareholder already, and so if he, as a large shareholder, communicated something to the board, and they acted, then the claim that isn't kosher rings a bit hollow - large shareholders communicate with boards and some activist ones go further.

Internally I suspect there is some concern about Musk. The head of legal was reportedly crying regarding this buyout. They've got their misinformation management efforts around the biden laptop story and other issues (vaccines etc etc) that musk may not back as fully as Gadde did. So they could be moving some deck chairs in advance of Musks arrival. Be interesting to see how it shakes out, may not be smooth - Twitter is HQ'ed in San Francisco.

Sorry, the view is more that traditional civil liberties reinforces white supremacist power structures (I think the ACLU actually has a page on this?). So that those in the ACLU perusing what were some of those "traditional" civil liberties things (free speech etc) were supporting white supremacy. The ACLU has moved away from that towards some of the speech = violence approach which then basically allows a violent response.

Let me go point by point.

"A good manager knows to give a layoff speech without creating legal liability."

No, this is not true. Many good managers, even nice managers can mess this up. It is not always obvious. Being a good manager is different than (sometimes somewhat arbitrary) things that generate legal liability.

"The liability comes in how they select who they lay off and the actions taken prior to lay off."

Again, this is totally false. MUCH legal liability is created AT THE POINT OF LAYOFF/TERMINATION. I happen to see this over and over. It's weird / scary to hear folks here deny this so brazenly. If you deal with wrongful termination cases a common first source of dispute will center around what was said / claimed at termination both too the employee or employees affected AND to others about the termination. Sure, you can get into statistics around groups and how selected etc, but practically if you can show the lies / inconsistencies in that good managers explanation for layoff provided right there (and there WILL be inconsistencies if they go on for a long time trying to justify / avoid hurt feelings etc) you can "skip to the good part $$$". I'll note that some of the biggest issues comes from nice to very nice managers, they often are sloppier with employee files, sloppier with boundaries and more. They are often liked - so the cases can be a bit of a bummer.

My point stands, some companies have a relatively scripted layoff for these larger layoffs that has gone through legal and other reviews. They don't always allow for a lot of back and forth discussion. Not all of course.

This is so wrong it's not funny. If you are going to be laying off folks PLEASE check with someone on HR / legal side before taking the above advice.

A ton of liability has been created historically based on what is said at the time of a termination.

I personally don't like managers who say how hard the layoff is for them, the employee does NOT care. Just get to the point "I have some bad news to share...."

If you are smaller, your emp practices insurance carrier would LOVE if you called them prior to laying someone or a few folks off. Almost all offer free support as this is THE area that generates a huge amount of claims.

Not sure if directly relevant but they are focusing on DEI so this is across staff. That has led to some tension between the old guard (white supremacist / civil rights supporters depending on view) and new guard (equality / human rights focus).

They had bylaws historically which emphasized "wholly without political partisanship" as well, though I think that's probably long gone by now.

Awesome, I like it. I've been putting more in my subjects recently to good effect.

No one wants to read a long email from what I see. "hey john... " just isn't great.

Interesting. Sort of makes sense, as the risks in the crypto business do seem higher than say sticking it out at Google etc.

I did read their letter and eyes glazed at their Coinbase NFT push. Kind of crazy that folks are making mid - high six figured to develop stuff like that

Note that for legal reasons many of the layoff announcements are HEAVILY scripted. It's possible that the "pre-recorded" message was a teleprompter read or something else that does not allow a lot of back and forth.

There are so many causes for legal action these days the announcements in general have to be very bland.

Note I forget who it was, but there was a post or short video a while back predicting exactly this - 10% layoffs. Some driven by sales, others by companies using the cover of the economy to drop folks they'd like to have rotated out etc. This sounds superficially sales related, but don't know how carvana is doing to judge

I don't fully understand how they have such high costs (G&A / Tech etc). Their revenue is actually fine / great. But these costs are wild - what makes up the bulk of these?

Don't disagree - the "dark money" c4's have (ironically) been a complaint on the left for a while.

That said, this is still a real shift for the ACLU - this type of campaigning is not something they historically really did. So the push to actively campaign more is newish for them.

It's def where the money is though - the MAGA orgs, the NRA, the ACLU - in some ways they are just following the money.

My standard view is, you should be able to read just the headlines and have some clue about what is happening. Modern marketing means headlines have gone to absolute trash. You can't tell product updates from just stupid SEO spam articles (tips to do x with y). You can't tell product intros from outros.

I do like AWS style announcements. Their headlines are a bit long, but skimming them it's the what, and then the tag

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/

For week in review I wish they did parens for services - ie, Week in review (RDS, IAM, ECS).

Some services are basically dead from an updates perspective, others like RDS seem to have pretty solid budgets.

Long time apple phone users (since the first), never used Maps after it had me try to drop someone off at a train station by giving me directions to the highway that ran over the train station (!!!) while saying I was arriving at the station.

Will try it out again though. Google maps is pretty solid in my experience. Voice recognition is great in google apps for some reason.