One thing Microsoft does that Google does not is persistently push their garbage until it's actually not bad.
Blazr is relatively new compared to Microsoft's other libs but I'm sure in 5-10 years, it will be solid. It took .net core years before it became decent.
It is lying, so kind of, I mean it is not exactly cheating because it does not solve the puzzle as it is not solveable, contrary to the false headline, but it is cheating in that lying to claim that it is a solution. Maybe some manner of fraud?
> PopSci headlines are always clickbait/sensationalised.
For most people this level of dishonesty would get them fired or at least a stern request to leave. If I go to my boss and tell him sure I did my job if my job was something other than what you asked, he will tell me "pls go".
This should be called what it is, lies, and it should not be allowed on HN, and it should get all quantamagazine's social media accounts suspended.
That's okay. Euler wasn't trying to arrange these army officers for any sort of practical purpose, the whole point of the puzzle is an exercise in mathematics. So it's mathematically interesting that the puzzle cannot be solved in a conventional manner, but it's also interesting that it can be solved by applying quantum concepts. Interesting research like this is the whole point of Euler's puzzles.
But yeah I guess it's a disappointment to all those army generals who were hoping for a way to arrange their officers in a 6x6 square according to Euler's constraints. The use of quantum ranks may have deleterious effects on battlefield effectiveness.
> So it's mathematically interesting that the puzzle cannot be solved in a conventional manner, but it's also interesting that it can be solved by applying quantum concepts.
I guess the question was: Is the "quantum officers puzzle" the same puzzle as the one proposed by Euler or a variant?
If they're not the same, it's not a "quantum solution" but "a solution to a quantum variant". That can be interesting on its own (with proposals made in the discussions here), it's just that "Yeehaw, we solved something for the first time in 243 years With Quantum[tm]" seems to be the wrong take away (although it might mean the next round of public funding)
> As an Open Source developer, you build a new cool library or a tool and license it under AGPL.
Please don't do this, and don't advocate for this. (A/L)GPL is poorly understood by most, poorly worded, and the FSF refuses to clarify basic points regarding it and are openly hostile to people who sell software for money.
One example of the lack of clarity is what constitute linking, and where the boundaries of the covered software is. The like to play a game here where the on one hand suggest it is not linking to make network calls, but then in their own documentation say it is open ended and for court to decide where the boundaries are, which basically makes it completely pointless and a massive landmine. Just use a sane license by less zealous people.
> and are openly hostile to people who sell software for money
That's not true. The FSF endorses selling software for money, as long as the source code for the software is made available under a free license:
> Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
> Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license.
Copyleft licenses can be inconvenient for developers who want to integrate copyleft-licensed software into their own incompatibly licensed software. The proposed arrangement in the article turns this inconvenience into an incentive to pay the developer. With dual licensing, developers of proprietary software can purchase a compatible commercial license to fulfill their product needs and fund development of the copyleft-licensed software at the same time.
>The proposed arrangement in the article turns this inconvenience into an incentive to pay the developer.
An incentive to pay the developer that completely undermines the point of free software (that proprietary software is evil and should be opposed, undermined and eliminated.) Dual licensing legitimizes proprietary software and contributes to its spread.
Richard Stallman of the FSF has a rebuttal to that opinion:
> When I first heard of the practice of selling exceptions, I asked myself whether the practice is ethical. If someone buys an exception to embed a program in a larger proprietary program, he's doing something wrong (namely, making proprietary software). Does it follow that the developer that sold the exception is doing something wrong too?
> If that implication is valid, it would also apply to releasing the same program under a noncopyleft free software license, such as the X11 license. That also permits such embedding. So either we have to conclude that it's wrong to release anything under the X11 license -- a conclusion I find unacceptably extreme -- or reject this implication. Using a noncopyleft license is weak, and usually an inferior choice, but it's not wrong.
> In other words, selling exceptions permits some embedding in proprietary software, and the X11 license permits even more embedding. If this doesn't make the X11 license unacceptable, it doesn't make selling exceptions unacceptable.
With all due respect to RMS, having read the linked page, that's a weak rebuttal. He seems to reject the premise on the grounds that it's sometimes inconvenient, but accepts it entirely on philosophical grounds when explaining why the FSF doesn't dual-license.
So I think he agrees with my general argument that dual licensing does undermine the principles of free software, but accepts that not everyone can afford to be a zealot.
I'm just suggesting that more appropriate licensing schemes already exist if a developer wants to be paid.
> He seems to reject the premise on the grounds that it's sometimes inconvenient
His argument is that if you consider dual licensing to be immoral because it enables the development of proprietary software, then to be logically consistent, you must also consider non-copyleft FOSS licenses such as BSD/MIT to be immoral because they do the same to an even greater extent. Stallman does not say that dual licensing undermines free software, he only says that it does not support free software as much as copyleft licensing does.
The FSF only uses copyleft licenses for software instead of non-copyleft FOSS licenses or dual licensing, sidestepping this issue entirely. They don't have a problem if people use BSD/MIT, so they also don't have a problem if people use dual licensing.
They can't be clear, because the law is manifestly unclear.
The theory they give for disallowing non-GPL code to link to GPL libs is that the linking process involves copyrighted code and materials in the header files and interface (API).
This is, of course, what the Oracle v Google case was all about. The code in question is even (dual) licensed under GPL! If the US Supreme Court can't give a straight answer to whether APIs are copyrightable, the FSF is wise not to give any advice that would potentially put their proverbial foot in their mouth.
Of course, the legal uncertainty doesn't stop RMS and his friends from spreading FUD about GPL "virality" because that theory helps making everything GPL.
That said, I think GPLv2 is generally OK if you believe in ideas of "Copyleft". In retrospect I think it's kind of sad that GPL slowly fell out of favor by devs because of all the complications of the GPL (of which some you mentioned). I remember in the early 2000s almost everything was GPLv2 by default. The world swung to permissive licenses after GPLv3 became too ambitious and made the licensing issues too complicated for the average software dev to care about. I suspect a lot of resentment that OSS devs don't get compensated is partially due to the ecosystem giving a lot of peer pressure for devs to use a permissive license by default (where they might actually have intended something like copyleft or non-commercial use licenses).
I know a significant part of my salary is paid for by the productivity of permissive licensed OSS (i.e. my employer doesn't have to pay OSS, so presumably part of the saving goes to paying me), but still these "what ifs" are still worth thinking about, and maybe there's still a chance that some issues could be addressed.
90% of jobs in the high density business district in the city nearest you.
Unless you count browsing the internet, gossiping about karen in marketting, sitting in meetings that have no relevence to you and checking email as a daily task that requires 6 hours of work; at most there is a half days work done each day.
> 90% of jobs in the high density business district in the city nearest you.
Have you examined the possibility you may be ignorant to what 90% of those jobs entail? Not being able to understand their output and complexity doesn't make them performative.
The impending global melt down of climate change and bitcoin isn't enough? The fact that our entire government handles a pandemic worse than some 3rd world countries? The fact that our country just let more people die than all of our previous wars combined to support capitalism?
The fact that polluters have been allowed to leave ticking time bombs all around our country without having to pay for the clean up, that we are still mining coal, that our obesity crisis could be solved by walking and taking the bus, but politicians are terrified of letting gasoline rise to its actual price?
Actually producing output is not the only way employees add value, though. The much-derided “water cooler” talk for example can be a way for cross-team pollination and build cohesion across thehahhahaha just kidding!
Yet you fail to provide one concrete example, I also sometimes attend meetings, browse the internet and talk to colleauges, but this in no way makes my job performative.
If you can't provide an example it is fine, I understand, I already think you are wrong about it, and this just confirms it.
That there is any controversy in this statement is insane, but I would be very wary of ever making this statement non-anonymously, because I know I'm more likely than not to be cancelled for it.
China has mastered the manipulation of the west's successor ideology better than those in the west that instituted it.
Edit: I had to ask you about this just recently (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29555995). Continuing to abuse HN like this will end up getting you banned here, so please don't.
It can when materialistic quality is a factor in purchasing decisions. For example, I recently had to buy a new rice cooker and based on my prior experiences of owning both Japanese and Chinese brands; the former outlasted the latter by thirty years. Just because it was cheap and easily sourceable doesn't discount expected quality assurances.
I'm not saying this applies to all Chinese made products but something I keep in mind for all future purchases.
For one, chinese made Teslas are superior in quality to American ones. So looks like you are right, not every chinese product should be seen as inferior to japanese or even American.
Ancient Athens had ostracism [1]. It was against a single person and not against ideas but given that the numbers where smaller and heads carry ideas, it was more or less the same thing.
China is famously very accepting of all ideas and would never ban or ostracize members of its own society for perspectives that disagree with the majority's belief.
Cancel culture isn't that either. Cancel culture is a rebranding of 'shunning', which I bet predates humans as we know them. I bet our social monkey predecessors had such tactics figured out.
You broke the site guidelines egregiously here, and made it worse downthread. We ban accounts that do that repeatedly, and I'm dismayed to see that you've been doing it a lot.
The comments below mine just don't look like i "made" something worse, quite the opposite, the comments below mine are leaning more in that or the other direction, i am fine with that i don't see a problem here...but anyway...accepted.
Then you need to do a better job of moderating the bad comments in the first place. We're all trying to make HN a good and enjoyable place the best way we can, and you warn "both sides" like that helps anything.
You seem to have an unrealistic picture of what moderation can do, if you think we ought to be moderating all the bad comments in the first place. That's not remotely possible.
How so? Even if the intent of such programs might be positive, is there not a risk of them being used to limit, coerce, or change user behaviour? (it wouldn't be the first time)
Social credit is offensive and freedom-limiting by definition. You can't make any small-d-democratic argument in favor of a massive central social credit system because the two are antithetical.
A vaccine passport system could turn into something similar, but that's not necessarily a given. It's the slippery slope fallacy taken to the extreme - "because it's possible to imagine a situation in which a vaccine passport system goes way beyond its usefulness and becomes oppressive, that means vaccine passport systems are oppressive." In addition to that sentiment being wrong, HN also has a pretty violent knee-jerk reaction to anything that could even potentially be taken as anti-vax sentiment. As can be seen by this garbage[0].
Zero trolling here. I am modestly in favour of a COVID-19 vaccine "passport". And yes, I have considered the oppression side of the argument. Why am I modestly in favour? Look at how yellow fever vaccination status is handled. In areas of the world where it is still endemic, travelers are denied entry without a recent vaccination and an official UN/WHO card to prove it. (Please leave aside for a moment the idea that these cards can be fake. Assume they are accurate for this discussion.)
Almost by small-d-democratic definition, the yellow fever vaccine requirement is oppressive. However, it helps to reduce the spread of yellow fever.
I've never traveled anywhere yellow fever is endemic so I don't know a ton about it other than the vaccination requirements you mention.
I carry my vaccination card in my wallet so I'm not immediately opposed to some sort of verifiable way to confirm one's vaccination status. There are absolutely some instances where it makes sense to mandate it, but it's wrong to try to structure society so that you can't take part unless you're vaccinated. There's a point at which mandates and guidelines aren't helpful anymore and they become theater. I'm not going to put a mask on at the entrance to a restaurant, walk ten feet to a table, and take my mask off. That's theater.
I have unvaccinated family members. They're not changing their mind, I'm done trying to change it, but they're still in my family and they're not disowned or excommunicated because they happen to be wrong about something. Omicron seems as transmissible or slightly more-so, but much less deadly. That sounds like exactly what we thought multiple variants would lead to a year ago. It sounds like things are in the right track and we're on our way out of the forest, so to speak. But, government being government, I don't see mandates slowing or going away any time soon. I think what's here is here to stay, whether it works or not.
I'm not informed enough to comment on the virus or quality/efficacy/safety of any of the vaccines, but I am vaccinated, and have friends and family in both camps. All I know is that this is not a naive virus, I know about a dozen people who have had it, not everyone has survived, but everyone who has was genuinely afraid for their lives. That anecdotal evidence is enough to convince me to accept a vaccine/medication because I feel the risk/reward is favourable.
I can't bring myself to support mandated vaccination or making pariahs out of those who don't share my risk/reward considerations, however, because I think clawing back individual liberties that we give up is much harder than finding the compromises necessary to hold onto them in the first place.
I might be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, but I would prefer compromise and tolerance to a knee-jerk reaction. There is already too much bad legislation born from "times of emergency" and such, no need to stoke the flames.
Thank you for your honest and balanced reply. I spent some time to think about it.
How do you feel about "anti-vaxxers" (a weird term by itself) refusing to get measles vaccines? (It is regularly quoted as one of the most infectious human viruses.) In the United States, some communities that have a high ratio of people whom refuse to vaccinate their children have seen outbreaks of measles. (Southern California!) It's a devastating disease for children who don't yet control their own destiny. Frequently, parents are themselves inoculated, but refuse the same vaccines for their own children.
I can understand and appreciate: For adults the decision for COVID-19 vaccine is a bit different. They are only controlling their own destiny.
> Social credit is offensive and freedom-limiting by definition.
Yes, I agree. I was defending this exact point. The commenter I replied to originally seemed upset about the original comment condemning vax passports.
To put a proof of vaccination on the same level as a social credit system is just beyond, if you don't have a passport you cannot travel into other country's, if your dog is not vaccinated against rabbis, he cannot travel to let's say Georgia.
I am upset because a Quanon goat thinks a vaxpass is the same as a social credit system, and was just made for that "ultimately"
There's a risk of a baseball bat being used to limit, coerce, and change people's behavior, and there are documented cases of them being used in that way, but nobody would say that the Louisville Slugger is crypto-authoritarianism.
Your statement isn't offensive and nobody is offended by it; it's just, as the comment above said, stupid. There's a difference.
Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You have a long history of doing this, even though I know you've also posted lots of good things.
As someone who has used the MS stack, I have yet to witness anything I would call high quality.