> You must follow all license terms, including these extra conditions, to legally use or distribute the software.

Good thing that the license says in section 7: “[…] When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions [“terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions”] from that copy, or from any part of it. […]”

That clause doesn't apply because we're talking about an additional restriction, not an additional permission.

But, same result, because it also says:

> If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.

A restriction stating "you must keep branding" can be ignored. What you can require, is attribution.

The license contains (section 7):

> [you may] supplement the terms of this License with terms: > >[...] > > b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or > author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal > Notices displayed by works containing it; or > > c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or > requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in > reasonable ways as different from the original version; or > > d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or > authors of the material; or > > e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some > trade names, trademarks, or service marks;

So the requirement of branding and attribution aren't "further restriction" (which, in this context, means a restriction that is not in the AGPLv3 license text). It's after section 7's list of allowed restrictions, which, paragraph b, contains "require preservation of [...] legal notices or [...] attributions", paragraph d is made to prevent misuse of the original author reputation, and paragraph e to prevent misuse of trademarks, so they, IMHO, are all legitimate.

Yes, preservation of [...] author attributions --- not branding or logos

These are different things.

However, I did glance at the repo and I don't see any attributions, either.

Then “campaign” was not the correct word to describe it. It's like calling any group of people an “organization”.

"It is likely that Artemis II will land safely" and "Artemis II is Not Safe to Fly" are both compatible with the probability of a disaster on reentry being 10%.

As someone who has made several comments consisting entirely of “…in mice.”, let me assure you that the reflex only kicks in after reading the paper and noticing that the experimental subjects were exclusively mice.

The problem is not mice experiments on arxiv, the problem is posting those papers for broader dissemenation to the public, with titles suggesting to the public that cancer has been cured, without prominently pointing out that the experiments were not about cancer in humans.

> problem is posting those papers for broader dissemenation to the public, with titles suggesting to the public that cancer has been cured

Fair enough. I'm thinking of cases where a good study that isn't turned into PR slop is dismissed because it was done in mice. Which is fine for most people. But not great if we're treating real science that way.

Dismissing good science is entirely the correct decision when the good science isn't ready for broad dissemination to the audience which it is being presented to.

That might be true, but it's still straightforwardly wrong to say that RAM prices have crashed, and it calls into question everything else they write.

yeah good point, although it's just one of all the catalysers I mentioned. I fact I had written most of the post already before I saw the news about RAM.

The effect has since been experimentally demonstrated.

> I always thought of reversible computing as a sort of platonic ideal that cannot truly exist in real life

It's been experimentally demonstrated. Practical or not, the effect is real.

Where? If you mean that a computation was performed without creating any entropy, I'm skeptical. Surely some energy input was needed, and some energy was dissipated.

Transcoding is only guaranteed for twitch partners, and the cdn doesn't actually distribute the video to a given datacenter until at least one viewer using that datacenter requests it.

ya but 99% of streamers have their stream up in their dashboard or on a side monitor, so its always going to be sending and transcoding something

Twitch can forward the stream as is without transcoding it. That's what transcoding not being guaranteed means. It will be a worse experience for viewers but it can work. Few years ago they even announced working with OBS on feature where streamers themselves can transcode and send multiple streams further reducing need for twitch to spend their compute resources on unprofitable streamers.

That feature exists by now, called "Enhanced Broadcasting".

In addition to the other reply, forwarding to one region in the cdn is not the same as forwarding to every region.

The question is not whether the walls can contain the bull until animal control arrives, but whether any china will remain intact.

The bull comparison is a bit unfair to the bull, who didn't break any china at all in MythBusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzw2iBmRsjs

It's more like the early bits of Jurassic Park: the T-Rex bashing away at the restraints while everyone assures you that they spared no expense to make it secure.

Given the iran situation I think china will be fine.

(I'll show myself out)

hn doesn't have tags; email hn@ycombinator.com (which is what the submitter did)