What the repo contains should not be very relevant. Proprietary and GPLed software can be in the same repo/disk/etc. We even see this in the official git repo with non-free firmware. Instead the concern is about what code the terminal application ends up using and what it links with. If his terminal did not link to any weird stuff then it is probably the case that they could avoid it as well. Also don't forget that the GPL contains an exception for system libraries specifically.
As for the segregation policy, it sounds like a self-imposed problem.
This argument is pointless. Microsoft doesn't need a YouTube video to teach its engineers how to do their jobs. They have tons of people in house who can code circles around any famous open source engineer, and who'd be happy to explain how to make cmd.exe great again internally
Like others have said, there are organizational issues causing the company's output to be embarrassing trash. Personally, I blame the Ballmer years of "unregretted attrition", but that's just my pet theory as to how it became a dysfunctional bureaucratic treacherous pirate's den
Personally I think that he owes them nothing, especially after the way he was treated in https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/10362 so I can't comprehend statements which claim that he was an asshole for using GPL.
He owes them nothing, you're right. I made no claim that he does.
I'm saying he could have helped the situation, and he deliberately chose to not only avoid helping, but to hinder anyone at Microsoft who wanted to look at that code and contribute to Windows Terminal. That was a choice he made intentionally.
He could have taken the high road, there. He chose not to. It's his choice, don't get me wrong, he was well within his rights. I just disagree with that choice. that's why I call that a "dick move". And if you disagree with me, that's fine. "Dick move" means different things to different people at different times.
> This is not true. You can verify it by setting showdead to yes in your profile. Such comments are not that common.
Are you sure you're using it right? I count NINE "[dead]" comments in the topic you commented on, within half an hour of you making that comment. I mean, sorry, but that is just laughably wrong. Everything even remotely political here gets moderated heavily, both by community flagging and site moderators.
Some older studies from the 80s and 90s that are even higher (well into the 90%), but they may not be the best representation of the modern trans situation.
"Assange got a fair hearing at every court in the land up to the supreme court"
This is debatable, especically for anyone who followed Murray's reporting. Here are a few random links that I had bookmarked that give a different opinion. I could possibly find more but I really do not want to spend the rest of the day on this.
I also think that you misunderstood what the parent said, I took it to mean that the court could deny it because they could hypothetically decide that it wasn’t a crime according to UK law
I think this really lays it out clearly now where you're coming from. I point to a whole series of judgements that lay out in clear legal text why and how they came to the decision to extradite Assange and you reply with essentially a claim that one of the most respected judges in the country is biased because he's friends with a government minister. Guess what? That is literally not evidence.
It's literally a case of: On the one hand we have the expert legal opinions of a series of the top judges in the country, on the other hand we have some amateur internet slueths.
As despicable as this was, it was all the DNC, not Clinton or her campaign. The irrational Republican hatred of Hillary Clinton is absolutely ridiculous and without remotely resembling anything rational or honest. It was a campaign of bullying, hatred and sexism, and ignorance won. The character assassination of Hillary Clinton, the election of President Trump, and the January 6 Insurrection, all stand to embarrass our nation on the international stage. The World turns it's lonely eyes to America, for inspiration, as a roll model, and we just screwed the pooch. If America was a conscious entity, it'd wish it could just curl up and die of embarrassment for the Republican shenanigans over the last 6-7 years. If everyone would simply ignore all other distractions and vote in their personal economic interests, we'd never see another Republican elected to any office, and our economy would boom like we've never seen. But the ignorance and hatred is strong, so our economy will struggle while the uber rich continue to desperately consolidate the vast majority of the wealth into the hands of the minuscule few.
Starting with an assumption that Republicans have a goal of winning elections isn't it pretty rational for them for do character assassination and not irrational? The average voter isn't going to fact check your attack ads.
So, just to make this clear, you were aware from the very start that
- At 2017 when the study was made, CLBG relied (and still is) on "FFI, unsafe code, and hand-written SIMD intrinsics".
- The author of that paper did in fact mention the benchmarks game.
- The two 2017 CLBG examples that hayley-patton linked are exactly the same in the study's github repo.
But despite that, you decided to waste everyone's time and your real complaint is that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504 should have linked at the github links that I posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31548339 even though contents are exactly the same (at least as far as the argument is concerned, I have not and will not check if one of the versions has an extra ; or whatever), is that right?
Edit: it came to my attention that you are the one running CLBG, you might want to mention that (either on your profile or on your posts) when you engage in CLBG-related arguments.
> The author of that paper did in fact mention the benchmarks game.
Different author.
When hayley-patton writes "The third sentence should ring alarm bells in the head of the author" they mean the author of "We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js".
"The author does not mention the benchmarks game" and "Please quote the author's words which you say are misinformation" and "the author is talking about a 2017 study" and "the author actually tells us the reason" are also referring to the author of "We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js".
hayley-patton said the author of "We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js" — "shouldn't repeat misinformation" — and gave this as the "misinformation":
"TypeScript is apparently far more energy-hungry (and we're not likely to use pure JavaScript)."
As for the segregation policy, it sounds like a self-imposed problem.