You realize that the world changes and we update out language as we go?
Saying "we already have a definition" when it's not clear whether it's been considered whether that definition would interact with something which is new, is... I don't even know what word to use. Square? Stupid?
> Saying "we already have a definition" when it's not clear whether it's been considered whether that definition would interact with something which is new, is... I don't even know what word to use. Square? Stupid?
The word you're looking for is "correct". The definition doesn't change just because circumstances do. If you want a term to refer to "open source unless it's for AI use", then coin one, don't misuse an existing term to mean something it doesn't.
> If you want a term to refer to "open source unless it's for AI use", then coin one
We even have such term already. It's source-available. Nothing necessarily wrong or bad about it. It only requires people to be honest with themselves and don't call code open if it's not.
Part of the background for this entire dispute is that prior to the OSI's founding, "open source" was a generic phrase which was broadly understood to just mean "the source code is available". See many documented cases in https://dieter.plaetinck.be/posts/open-source-undefined-part...
So it's a bit ironic to argue that terms cannot be redefined, when that's already what happened with "open source" and what got us here in the first place. If OSI had chosen a novel term (e.g. "Sourceware" was one option they considered), they would have been able to trademark it and avoid this entire multi-decade-long argument.
Rather, the definition as it is now, and has been for some time, addresses the same old difficulties and distractions that rear their heads again and again wearing slightly different masks.
Well, as the author says in the FAQ, he's been using the name Final Cut since 1991, whereas the famous video editing software appeared in 1999. Now, given how well-known the latter became, a name change would certainly be reasonable if he wanted to avoid confusion, improve find-ability in web search, etc. But, I get the impression that's not among his priorities, and it's his project, so...
The concept of database cursor, or more generally continuation token, has been around a long time. Jumping to pub/sub is missing the mark.
You can have RPC prompt(input) return an opaque cursor, and promptNext(cursor) which returns partial output and the next cursor. As appropriate, the client could specify the desired size of output chunks along with input. The server could advertise or have documented the grace period for exhausting the cursors, but that’s not strictly necessary as it could be indicated in a promptNext(cursor) call that failed because of timeout. Transport session reuse can be handled automatically by HTTP.
When client receives output from a promptNext call it can work on updating the UI while promptNext is dispatched again in the background.
Developers should properly learn the difference between push and pull reactivity, and leverage both appropriately.
Many, though not all, problems where an async mutex might be applied can instead be simplified with use of an async queue and the accompanying serialization of reactions (pull reactivity).
My wife and I bought a house in 2022. It's an old home (built in the late 1800s) that underwent a gut rehab by a real estate firm in 2018-19, and which they subsequently ran as an Airbnb for several years owing to the pandemic and its effects on the housing market.
By 2024, it became apparent that while the rehab squad had done a really amazing job on most of the house, they also cut corners here and there and made some costly mistakes... well, costly to us.
We needed two major jobs done on the house, both for the exterior. I got several quotes from respected contracting firms in the St. Louis area, and the best price for Job A was around USD $40k while the best price for Job B was around $20k. Those were all multi-employee firms and promised to get the jobs done in just a few days once they could get started (booked solid for 5+ months).
Long story short, we ended up hiring a local solo contractor (never has helpers) with 40+ years experience who only takes cash and is something of a perfectionist (and dare devil!). Watching him work and talking to him about his work, it's clear he considers his efforts to be labors of love and a kind of art to which he is deeply devoted. He got the work done in a timely manner and was careful to abide by all the rules of the neighborhood association related to exteriors of historic homes. He charged USD $8k and $5 for the jobs, a massive savings for us! I'm not sure what we'll do in 20 years when we'll likely need another round of work and this guy is in his late 80s.
Unless by the early 1950s the US and possibly others were launching objects into orbit, and their doing so has been a closely guarded secret even until now. The nuclear tests would have offered natural PR cover.
If we rule out ETs for the sake of argument, and if these weren’t atmospheric effects or artifacts from the nuclear tests themselves, then small objects were in orbit at the time and either they were launched from Earth or the planet happened to be crossing paths with them.
> Unless by the early 1950s the US and possibly others were launching objects into orbit, and their doing so has been a closely guarded secret even until now.
Because of the very public competition between the US and the former USSR, any rocket technology successes would have become public very quickly. For example, Alan Shepard's 1961 suborbital flight was rather lame by modern standards and much less than the USSR had already accomplished, but it was front-page news. And after Sputnik launched, late in 1957, heads figuratively rolled among American rocket scientists because we were late in a very public race to orbit.
This doesn't refute the possibility you suggest, it only makes it unlikely.
> If we rule out ETs for the sake of argument, and if these weren’t atmospheric effects or artifacts from the nuclear tests themselves, then small objects were in orbit at the time and either they were launched from Earth or the planet happened to be crossing paths with them.
I like your approach -- don't assume the least likely possibility, consider all the alternatives first. As Carl Sagan liked to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
It's too bad that the evidence is so poor. The photographic resolution isn't good enough to either eliminate or accept a number of possibilities.
https://opensource.org/osd
reply