Shameless from them to make it look like it's a user problem.
It was loading fine for me one hour ago, now I refresh the page and their message states I'm doing too many requests and should chill out (1 request per hour is too many for you?)
I remember that I made a website and then I got a report that it doesn't work on newest Safari. Obviously, Safari would crash with a message blaming the website. Bro, no website should ever make your shitty browser outright crash.
If you broke a string into overlapping blocks you could easily reconstruct it. The key here is that blocks form a sliding window on the string
If blocks were nonoverlapping then yeah the problem is much harder, akin to fitting pieces of a puzzle. I bet a language model still could do it though
Stallman's version of free is free to the end user. He cares more about whether the end user will have access to the source code and means to modify their software to remove any anti-feature, and less about whatever freedoms the developers of said software would want (such as, the freedom to close the source and distribute only binaries)
Ultimately Stallman was against a kind of digital feudalism, where whoever developed software had power over those that didn't
I've always thought of it as: Stallman wants the code itself to enjoy freedom, more than caring about the freedom of the people who create and use that code.
To which none can answer how it creates freedom without mass adoption to actually get the software into end users' hands. The great contradiction in FSF philosophy is to create highly pure software within a monastery of programmer-users while simultaneously insisting to focus on end-user freedoms without reconciling programmer incentives to build what these end users need.
You are correct that FSF does not consider the entire system at large as free. AOSP and WebKit are certainly really free in the FSF sense, but sure, almost all Android distributions in practice also contains some non-free software in addition to the free stuff, critically the firmware blobs for radio and other chipset drivers. In principle, you can get a fully free Android to browse the web over WiFi if you have an appropriate hardware; the code for all parts of the stack to do so is available. Things like GrapheneOS come close. Most users can install a fully free browser inside regular Android too (same on iOS, Windows, Mac and desktop Linux). Realistically, the biggest hurdle in the user freedom for Android is not the non-free software, but the devices employing signature verification in hardware/bootloader (i.e. Tivoization).
Why would it matter in this context; the GP was asking a theoretical question akin to "how is it physically possible for the sky to be blue?" and I am just pointing at the sky saying "look!"
It is Free Software whether it is BSD or GPL3. By all measures, Free Software as originally envisaged has been a massive success. It's just the goalposts have expanded over the years.
You clearly did not read the FSF manifestos and don't understand their positions. They will call the BSD license "permissive" and will correct you if you attempt to call BSD "free/libre".
> Why would it matter
The FSF didn't build "open source." They actively work to discredit open source. Let's not give them credit for what they tirelessly denounce.
Linux is open source, but did not adopt the GPL3. Firefox is open source but uses MPL. If the FSF is a leader who is responsible for all of these great projects, why doesn't anyone want to use their license?
Assuming LGPLv3 and AGPLv3 count too - quite a lot, on both my laptop and phone. Most of the core utilities, pretty much entire system UIs, most applications I run... The MPL browser I use on the laptop and GPLv2 kernel are probably the most notable exceptions, I guess.
> FSF tactics for producing and promoting free/libre do not.
What is your criteria for judgement here? The FSF GPL licenses, in reality have worked quite well, if the criteria is longevity, high usage, popularity, utility and maintained.
If your only criteria is "Well, they're only #2", then sure, by that criteria they did not "work".
Just look at LLVM and GCC, the central subject here. GCC is hanging on while entire ecosystems build on top of LLVM, primarily for technical reasons. What started off as insularity lead to technical weakness. Technical weakness will end in obscurity. What is free after that?
The crossover will more likely be driven by silicon trends providing an opportunity for LLVM's velocity to translate to enough competitive advantage for casual users to want LLVM. Once that happens, you will see some Linux distributions switch over. Hard liners will fork and do what they do, but asking people to use a compiler that gives them a worse result or is harder to work with isn't going to hold the gates.
Linus prefers LLVM for development.
People need to get out of the 90s and look at some data.
Right. That could happen in the future, but your assertion was that it had already happened, and you used that assertion as support for why the GPL already resulted in lower use.
I can't see the future, but I can tell you without a doubt that, as things stand right now, the GPL has been a runaway success for users' rights.
Will that change in the future? Who knows? But that wasn't your claim nor my counterclaim.
Yes. Note how I didn't say impossible to recover, just impossible to continue.
The execution couldn't continue in one path due to an error it needed to be caught in another path.
The difference with standard conditional mechanisms like if loops is mostly semantical. Exceptions are unforeseen errors, (technically they are sets of errors, which can have size 1, but the syntax is designed for catching groups of errors, if you want to react to a single error case you could also just use a condition with a return value and it ceases being an exception. )
This is both the Church encoding and the Scott encoding of the abstract data type
data Bool = True | False
making it pretty much the only encoding you find in the literature.
This is quite different from the case of the natural numbers, where not only do the Church and Scott encoding differ, but there are several other reasonable representations fitting particular purposes.
For me it's.. okay it's my daily driver already, but I really really want extensions to be able to create their own UI elements in the buffer, like VSCode does. Basically GPUI for extensions.
This would unblock people to write their own Jupyter integration for example, or whatever else they want. There's load of cool stuff like Argus https://github.com/cognitive-engineering-lab/argus that rely on creating buffers with custom UI, and Flowistry https://github.com/willcrichton/flowistry that rely on graying out some code, and I want this stuff on Zed too
Has the team commented on this? Coming from Emacs, it seems insane to not implement an API to the UI. GPUI looks great too, it’d be a real shame if they opted to keep the extensibility limited to just LSP servers and whatnot.
Truth needs to be put in context. Truth needs to be interpreted. There is no such thing as objective truth.
Effective propaganda is like a filter that is everywhere you look. You don't know it's there because you never see the world without it.
reply