What does this mean for their partners like Stable? The only reason I used Stable was because it was part of the onboarding flow for Stripe Atlas. Is that considered a physical biz address?
FWIW my biz address doesn't have PO box in the address. It is re-used though (which I know because when I tried to register a DUNS number with Apple the first problem I ran into was another business was already registered at the same address)
> There are certain theories of dark matter where it barely interacts with the regular world at all, such that we could have a dark matter planet exactly co-incident with Earth and never know. Maybe dark matter people are walking all around us and through us, maybe my house is in the Times Square of a great dark matter city, maybe a few meters away from me a dark matter blogger is writing on his dark matter computer about how weird it would be if there was a light matter person he couldn’t see right next to him.
> This is sort of how I feel about conservatives.
Please excuse a touch of extremely relevant self-promo. I am building a site to address exactly this. I'm calling it RedMeetBlue, pairing folks from the light and dark matter worlds for one-on-one chats. Link in profile. If you are interested in this experiment, or want to participate, I'd love to hear from you.
why does the red person have a mask on? Fringey for everyone at this point but I doubt it will encourage red people to join. Wasn't exactly their cup of tea.
It was a reference to the featured article. It does not have any good or evil connotations. The author suggested that, like light and dark matter coexisting without any knowledge of the other's presence, the author coexists with conservatives with certain views (creationists). Stats show that they are out there in huge numbers, but he has no first hand account.
Here he is alluding to dark matter. So the light universe is our observable universe, the dark universe is the hypothetical universe made up of dark matter that we know has to exist, but so far have no means of observing or interacting with. That's the analogy he's making between the Red and Blue teams. They co-exist in the same space but manage to avoid interaction.
That was the meaning of that first bit from the article that OP quoted.
Nope, not trying to trap anyone into a conversation they don't want to have. The purpose of the site is to match you with someone politically different. All marketing copy is forthright
Nice find. I read the Economist piece back then and found it quite wild. Good to know it wasn't as crazy as portrayed. Still, the Lacey Act seems like it could easily be abused, given that old, outdated laws tend to linger.
Funny how disinformation can spread so easily. Reading that stackexchange link throws a different shade entirely.
The article, which is about the real subject of american incarceration rate, present those dudes as innocent bystanders commiting a minor offence which should not even be an offence. On the other hand, these guys have been illegaly exploiting wild life in a foreign country for almost a decade and got jailed.
One aspect of working in a big company is figuring out where all the bits of specialized knowledge live, and what the company-specific processes are for getting things done. One use case for an internal chatGPT is essentially a 100% available mentor inside the company.
This is going to make for some highly entertaining post mortems.
"Management believed Jimmy Intern would be fine to deploy Prod Model Sysphus vN+1; their Beginner Acceleration Divison (BAD) Team was eager to show off the new LLM and how quickly it could on-board a new employee. To his credit, Jimmy asked the BAD model the correct questions for the job. That's when the LLM began hallucinating, resulting in the instructions to 'backup the core database' being mixed up with the instructions for 'emergency wipe of sensitive data'. Following the instructions carefully and efficiently, Jimmy successfully wiped out our core database, the backups, and our local tapes overnight."
Yawn. This is probably The hundredth time I’ve seen this scenario trotted out and knowledge base retrieval and interpretation has been solved since before bing chat was on limited sign up.
You don’t even need to fine tune a model to do this, you just give it a search API to your documentation, code and internal messaging history. It pulls up relevant information based on queries it generated from your prompt and then compiles it into a nicely written explanation with hyperlinked sources.
I'm not sure I follow. Knowledge based retrieval of what exactly? Outdated docs and dilapidated code? Aging internal wikis and chat histories erased for legal reasons?
Everyone also seems to overlook how much time and resources it takes for these models to be trained/fine tuned on a corpus of knowledge. Researches have calculated it probably took OpenAI the equivalent of 355 years on a single NVidia V100 to train up GPT 3. [1] Clearly they used more horsepower in parallel, which is a foreseen problem right now for other reasons. [2]
I mean, businesses change? The founders didn't have a crystal ball to see how every decision would play out.
Reading through these comments, I'm reminded of a pop psychology book that I read that essentially said "never try to take someone away, no matter how small, it is perceived as a much larger loss than it is".
If Hashicorp had started with this new license in the first place, do we really think they wouldn't have had the business success that they've had? We'll never know, but my guess is that a license that says "competitors can't copy us" would seem totally reasonable to folks contributing, and irrelevant to customers that have a problem to solve. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, I want to understand this obviously passionate response.
(Since I've commented a couple times on this let me also say I'm not a hashicorp employee nor know anyone there)
> I'm reminded of a pop psychology book that I read that essentially said "never try to take someone away, no matter how small, it is perceived as a much larger loss than it is".
That's not just pop psychology. That's straight from "The Prince" by Machiavelli.
“Injuries, therefore, should be inflicted all at once, that their ill savour
being less lasting may the less offend; whereas, benefits should be conferred
little by little, that so they may be more fully relished.”
I don't know that it's at all clear how successful Terraform would be if it started with a more restrictive license. I mean there is a reason why a lot of projects start out with a different license and only change to BSL once a certain level of popularity is achieved, right?
As a possible contributor, and with all things being equal (which, really, never happens), I'd prefer a GPL-based product to have my time over a BSD/MIT license, because I really want my work to remain free. A BSL-based product would have to be very important to me to make it worth for me to dedicate time to it.
In reality, the usefulness of the product and friendliness towards developers is much more important.
Do you think crack dealers change their mind and suddenly discover they can’t make money off free crack? Or they give it away knowing that’s how you develop a customer base.
Bait and switch isn’t about the literal means of production. It’s about corporation and organizational dishonesty.
It’s lame that hashicorp (and others) are fair weather open sources who start as open source to gain critical mass and then jettison their purported ideals when it benefits them.
Dishonest because they trick contributors into working toward something that they may not, I think probably wouldn’t have, chosen to work on had hashicorp been honest since the beginning.
I don't know what "literal means of production" is referring to here. Crack dealers don't generally control anything one might refer to as a "means of production"; they are more like resellers. Marxist terminology is a bit too much of a Duplo-brick description of reality to apply usefully here, or indeed in most places.
All the work done in this case can be forked into a different product, as is being done here. The reason crack dealers do what they do is they control the supply, not a "means of production". Hashicorp explicitly licenced away their control of the supply ten years ago.
I don't mind it. If a business is providing good software, and they have to make a license change to prevent someone from wholesale copying the work and selling it as a direct competitor, I'm for it! I'd rather have the sound business _in business_ and continuing to provide good software.
> This is why bankers earn more than nurses and teachers
I think it has more to do with the proximity to money. A banker is close to lots of money moving around, and in a position to craft some scheme to extract parts of it. This basically applies to all of finance. The closer you are, the more opportunities to extract large amounts. A nurse is far removed from the flow of money.
I think it certainly helps. But if that were the only factor, nurses would earn the same as doctors as they're side by side all day. And the guy making coffee in the financial district would get a fantastic bonus. :)
Not just finance. If you want to be wealthy get as close to large sums of money as possible. That's why people move to big cities and go to top schools. They are proxies to being near large sums of money.
It's also much harder to make money by creating value (i.e. nursing a sick person back to health) vs stealing value at scale (i.e. charging $25 overdraft fees to poor people's bank accounts.)
> Most people would rather pay a $25 overdraft fee, than not go overdrawn and keep the $25. That's what the fees popularity tells us.
That is not the case. In the US, only 41% of the people who went overdrawn did so willingly. About 20% knew they were low on funds and expected their deposit to clear first, and for the remainder, the overdraft was a surprise.[1]
The popularity of fees indicates that those who charge them want to keep charging them; it does not indicate that those who pay the fees are in favour of going overdrawn and paying fees.
My interpretation of the evidence is that 41% happily admit it. And another 50 plus pretend they don't. A few are unlucky as you say.
If this were not the case, those 50ish percent would stop doing it. The fact they keep paying these fees tells us one of 2 things is true: EITHER they are honestly not capable of managing a current account OR they (like the 41%) choosing not to but are conditioned not to admit it.
Personally I find the second option much more likely.
The same is true in a lot of other pieces of evidence: people routinely vote against their own interests for instance. And they knowingly eat food that's bad for them despite being offered alternatives.
This is a fundamental part of human nature no one wants to address: people are not logical, dispassionate, long term thinking, selfless, analytical, strategic entities. They do dumb shit that is bad for them. And then they lie about it.
"Lie" might not be the right word, people will claim passionately they want X then do Not X without a moments hesitation.
> The fact they keep paying these fees tells us one of 2 things is true: EITHER they are honestly not capable of managing a current account OR they (like the 41%) choosing not to but are conditioned not to admit it.
The fact that people keep getting robbed at gunpoint tells us one of two things is true: EITHER the victims are honestly not capable of living in a crime-infested world, OR they choose to get robbed but are conditioned to not admit it.
See the issue with your logic? There's a third option: there is a large power imbalance (like people designing exploitative bank account UXs/people in shady corner with guns) and that is being exploited against the wishes of the people who are victimized by them.
I mean, if you keep getting robbed by the same guy, in the same alley, and you could easily avoid that alley, but you don't and you know you will get robbed when you go down there, then yes. Sooner or later you're not actually being robbed. You're giving the guy money presumably because you like the service he offers?
I am all for clearer labeling etc. The few who legitimately don't want to go overdrawn should be offered all the assistance possible.
I just think we need to acknowledge that 40% admit they choose this and another 40% choose it but won't admit it...
> if you keep getting robbed by the same guy, in the same alley, and you could easily avoid that alley, but you don't and you know you will get robbed when you go down there, then yes.
Or rather, there is a robber at every alley, because there is no law that prevents robbing, and no enforcement of the laws that exist. In that society, if you have a gun but aren't robbing people, you're giving up money. What are people without guns gotta do?
I think it is always about the efficiency. Both nursing and teaching is low efficiency jobs. With teaching the customers or users are poor be it students or pupils. Just take a number of students in class. And multiply that by amount of money you are ready to pay for teaching each month. Now add everything else, it just doesn't scale.
Same goes for nursing, a single nurse can only nurse so many people in single month. And it only gets worse if you want 24/7 coverage. At least with teaching you could do 6 hours teaching + 2 hours other work during weekdays.
Why are you trying to dismiss this guy? I don't understand it. If you don't like the product or feel that $19 is too much money, then move along. God forbid someone tries to make a living by selling software.
I've personally struggled to test https locally [1], and I'm sure others have too. The next time I have the problem, though, I'll save myself the configuration and spend $19.
Care to expand on this for the curious?