441–450 of 454 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anthropic has a tough alignment interview. Like I aced the coding screener but got rejected after a chat about values. I think they want intense people on the value/safety side as well as the chops.
What is an intense person on the value safety side?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-plug for a tongue-in-cheek license I wrote to say exactly that, for exactly this reason :) https://codeberg.org/klardotsh/fork-off-public-license Fully agreed. FOSS maintainers don't owe you anything. You can ask for whatever you want, politely, but accept no or "maybe when I have the spoons, which may be never" as an answer, and don't push.
> If you've received source code with this license attached, you are free to build, run, and/or redistribute it. Maybe insert a few more rights here, like "modify"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They would pay, once their product depends on your work.
Would they? Their products depends on the work of thousands of FOSS contributions. And historically, the vast majority of companies haven't contributed or paid. All they've done is take. There have been numerous cases of GPL violations and other misappropriations of licenses. I don't see why a "Pay me $1000"-clause would be any different. Was at a talk by the curl maintainer a while back, he has a stack of emails fro…
Not quite an open-source project, but I did a massive blog post series on Microservices in Golang. It sort of became a bit of a defacto starting point for a while, it was an immense amount of work and effort. But I found my inbox flooded with people asking for advice, and honestly, writing about it all made me realise how ridiculous Microservices often are. I could tell many of the people asking me didn't really need…
How did something as popular not find its way to the internet archive ?
- https://web.archive.org/web/20220823113634/https://ewanvalen...
- https://web.archive.org/web/20220823104052/https://ewanvalen...
- https://web.archive.org/web/20220820044449/https://ewanvalen...
- https://web.archive.org/web/20220811080027/https://ewanvalen...
- https://web.archive.org/web/20220820045729/https://ewanvalen...
I regret everything I ever open sourced my works had one condition: attribution now it's all been slopped up by "AI", without attribution, primarily to devalue the labour of software developers
I think it is generally accepted that AI should not reproduce works that others have the right to. I think most people developing AI consider it a mode of failure when it does reproduce a copy of its training data. It remains an open question on who's responsibility it is to not distribute infringing AI works. The developer or the the user of the AI. Legally it is unclear due to a lack of cases providing precedent in…
> My concern is that people appear to be extending their claims to suggest that they control the right to be learned from.
Some would claim that training actually is not reading / learning but embedding / encoding. This take creates arguments like the following;
If I were to take his work and gzip it; does that mean I should be able to use it?
Why? Because this is an automated system. You are anthropomorphizing it unwarrantedly.
Not to mention usual copyright arguments like "If I memorize his code and write it on my computer by hand; can I do it now? What if I only remember 90%? 80%? What if I just change variable names?"
This isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be, in my humble opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The marginal cost of software is zero and therefore the just price in a perfect market is zero. You can compete on delivering features quickly (and that's how all 80-00s software was - they were able to charge simply because no one was offering same features yet), but other than that there is no way software can be a profitable product without being a monopoly - and monopolies is not a thing to be tolerated. You can…
Looking out across the software landscape, it seems to me software companies do just fine if they achieve some-to-most of: 1. Build a piece of software that actually solves one or more problems. 2. Keep ownership private and limited. Once you're publicly traded, long term planning becomes impossible and "line must go up" becomes the reigning false god. 3. Sell a perpetual commercial license to the version-at-purchase…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way to escape wage slavery without being born wealthy is to be a business owner and have that business scale. I can see why people have these fantasies. Huge businesses have been built on open source code bases. Many of us spend our lives writing software that has lasting benefit for our employers but our reward is a flat hourly fee. The place where I disagree with your take is that commercialization and ope…
> The only way to escape wage slavery without being born wealthy is to be a business owner and have that business scale. People working in finance or (in the year 2025) as AI researchers with fantastic signing bonuses for switching to Meta might want to disagree.
A large salary is still a salary.
A business owner is unconstructed by the market value of their labor.
I wrote a small app to display a bitrate graph of video files, and posted the code on GitHub with the GPL2 license. A few weeks later someone uploaded it to the Mac App Store and sold it for 7$, the only difference was the name.
This is extremely common. As far as I know any open source app that is remotely interesting will be downloaded, renamed and republished. And this is why a lot of such apps are no longer open source. One example is Sinder Sorhus, which has thousands of open source npm packages but zero open source iOS apps, even the free ones are closed source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way to escape wage slavery without being born wealthy is to be a business owner and have that business scale. I can see why people have these fantasies. Huge businesses have been built on open source code bases. Many of us spend our lives writing software that has lasting benefit for our employers but our reward is a flat hourly fee. The place where I disagree with your take is that commercialization and ope…
> Many of us spend our lives writing software that has lasting benefit for our employers but our reward is a flat hourly fee. There's plenty of companies that offer stock compensation. You may have to move to work for them, of course. That said, the flat hourly fee may be a better deal. If you take a % of the profits, those profits may be negative!
Companies adjust their stock compensation plans to ensure they don’t exceed market rates of compensation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did something as popular not find its way to the internet archive ?
I think it is these ones - especially since I can see that they turned to 404 pages later down the line - in order of parts 1 through 5; - https://web.archive.org/web/20220823113634/https://ewanvalen... - https://web.archive.org/web/20220823104052/https://ewanvalen... - https://web.archive.org/web/20220820044449/https://ewanvalen... - https://web.archive.org/web/20220811080027/https://ewanvalen... - https://web.archi…