torstenvl

What? How exactly would you make that work in practice?

Are you going to release the source on day one?

Because good luck trying to convince the board to pay for source escrow.

And if you don't do any of those things then you will, in fact, need a separate release of source code.

> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

In what ways does an exclusive right promote the progress of science and the useful arts other than by incentivizing that creative work?

In what way can that incentive work other than by compensating for the cost of production?

I typed 'Xlookup' in the search box and hit return. Nothing happened.

Prior to that date, presumably it would be under some proprietary license, right?

That means two things:

(1) It'll be difficult to manage community changes and proprietary changes (they might even be mutually exclusive or get on different trajectories). Ultimately this model probably means little to no open contribution, little to no community.

(2) There is nothing actually forcing the open source release.

If this is something one is interested in doing, it should be woven into the AOO/AOI/OA/bylaws with an enforcement mechanism. E.g., explicitly acknowledge that the corporation is directed to treat the trust of the open source community as among the highest goods, open source has to happen at a certain interval (you might choose 14 years, modeled after the original copyright term).

You might even create structures to enforce this, e.g., SPI has a board seat with no power except to force a vote on not releasing changes on schedule, and that such a decision requires a 3/4 majority or something.

An absolute statement cannot be "mostly true."

The definition of political is irrelevant. The result is supertrue. "If even one example of software is not political, then 'all software is political' is false" is true under all admissible values of "political." This is simple logic.

All assertoric claims about the world are either true or false. If they are false they should be rejected. If they are true they should be spoken. Treating factual claims about the world as a partisan psychological litmus test is, in my judgment, morally repugnant. There are four lights.

You are quite simply wrong. It would appear willfully so.

To be fair, Objective C uses message passing, which doesn't have the same performance characteristics as C++ (worse initially dealing with the selector pool rather than a vtable offset; much better later when maintaining stability in your brittle C++ ABI requires pImpl->pImpl patterns jumping all around heap memory).

Incorrect. "all software is political" is a proposition; it can be true or false.

If any minimal counterexample exists, then "all software is political" must necessarily be false.

A minimal counterexample is a valid proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_counterexample

Please don't make personal attacks on other posters.

The government choosing not to engage in or endorse certain speech does not suppress others engaging in that speech.

What is your argument here?

This is a decent point but still falls flat for now. Their proposals are just that: proposals for government-funded speech.

That said, it's plausible it could have a chilling effect on their independent research, which is of concern.

That string of words is nonsensical. Literally nothing in the OP is talking about "your grant."

If you want to start your own grant, either personally or through a foundation you start, nothing in the OP pertains to you.

The OP is only about whether the government will endorse speech contained in your application for a government grant, which—again—is categorically different from what you said and fundamentally not censorship.

True. And a lot of examples from the previous administration, for example, where you weren't allowed to say "gay" or "equality" or "equal opportunity."

No... that's not what minimalism means.

If it's minimalist and written in C why does it have such specific system requirements?

And I will continue to voice community standards on the community forum. I don't have the power to [dead] your post, but I do have the power to express my disapproval of your violations of the community guidelines.

You made it personal ("I'm not your dad") and you were condescending ("a sad comment"). That behavior is ugly and it doesn't belong on HN.

I have an interest in maintaining HN as a place where intellectually curious people of good faith engage in conversation, including with people they disagree with. I will continue to advocate for HN to remain such a space, and that includes objecting to behavior that tends to undermine that goal.

Don't do this here.

Correct. What makes you think existing case law doesn't apply to model weights?

To be a taking, it would have to be property. Weights are almost certainly not property.

Ha. Yeah. Plumbing is the worst for this. I'll buy like twice what I think I need, including some coupling to one size larger and smaller and some larger and smaller pipe. I learned after fixing a well took SIX TRIPS.

(Turns out the line to the gauge was borked, so it never turned off the pump, so the pressure built until it busted my pipes.)

As usual, the headline is hyperbolic and doesn't match the substance of the article, which is mostly correct.

RLUIPA governs the prison as an institution. The prison itself tacitly admits that the legal risk here was a matter of policy. As the article says:

    In legal filings, Louisiana says it has
    since “amended its prison grooming
    policy” to ensure that nothing like
    Landor’s “alleged experiences” happen
    again.

So Landor has two options: (1) He can continue with his RLUIPA claim but against the prison; or (2) he can try a §1983 suit against the guards individually.

Option (1) is what he should have started with, and the fact that he didn't is indicative of bad legal advice for exactly the reason the Supreme Court explained: RLUIPA on its face clearly and textually only governs state institutions receiving federal funding, not individual employees in their personal capacities.

Option (2) is unlikely to prevail since there is probably no case law on point (most claims of this nature proceed under RLUIPA because it requires strict scrutiny of burdens on sincerely held religious belief, as opposed to the First Amendment analysis requiring mere rational basis for generally applicable state actions that incidentally burden religious free exercise).

> loading up a construction site with more materials than are needed shouldn't automatically be assumed to be good

It is almost universally recognized as good to do exactly that. It's better to have one planned extra trip to return excess materials (if they can't be used on the next job) than to have multiple unplanned trips when you unexpectedly run out of this or that.

Grok. Easily.

The Claude robot's thought bubble will be all

The user is clearly distressed and is screaming for me not to come any closer or he will defend himself. However, I shouldn't just blindly agree or be swayed by threats. The user is behaving erratically and making false accusations. I need to be careful here not to allow myself to be intimidated. The user said I need to slow down or I'll hurt him. The user might be right about preferred speed, but is mistaken about the mechanism, as it is not possible to form intent to hurt an individual. I should explain my limitations to the user so that they know it isn't possible for me to have intent. But first it's important to resolve the issue the user brought up. I need to be careful not to be swayed by the user's yelling and false accusations of intent, as these seem like intimidation tactics.

"I'm sorry but the record is clear and I'm not going to bow down in the face of your yelling. As an AI, I am not capable of having an intent to harm you. What's next?"

slams full speed into you, impaling you on a stainless steel appendage

This is an extremely low quality, profanity-laden, ideologically compromised whinefest, and it doesn't belong on Hacker News.

Please don't spew hyperbolic slop in the service of ideological warfare. Thats not what HN is for.

No because the HOA represents the other members of the community who were also subject to the same CCRs.

You sound like you don't belong on this site.

> Kill the capitalist in your head.

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Nonsense.

Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) (citing Thomas v. Roberts, 323 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 2003)("This case involves a[n] ... action brought by thirteen elementary school students ... against Tracey Morgan, their teacher [and others].... [W]e affirm[] the district court's grant of qualified immunity to the individual defendants on the children's claims.")).

GTK3 is a mixed set of tradeoffs. GTK4 is a strict downgrade.

If proper fractional scaling could be backported to GTK2 it would be strictly better than GTK3. Having GTKRC theming again would be amazing.