I wonder what the basis is for the description of the 3.7 / 4 ruby releases is. I haven't seen this transition plan with version numbers described outside of this blog post.
Hey there. I wrote the article. While I know the version numbers aren’t concrete, I added the proposal anyways as a way for readers to visualise what the maintainers had in mind. Since we’re only at 3.4 with 3.5 in preview, it can’t be claimed concretely what the future holds. I just didn’t make that super obvious in the post.
I had to explain the same reasoning in Reddit the other day. Perhaps it’s time to take this as a feedback and update the blog.
Btw I just asked gpt to write an article on the same topic, with a reference to the Ruby issues page. And it DID NOT add the future proposal part. So LLMs are definitely smarter than me.
Curious about this process. Can anyone submit patches to bcachefs and Kent is just the only one doing it? Is there a community with multiple contributors hacking on the features, or just Kent? If not, what could he do to grow this? And how does a single person receiving patreon donations affect the ability of a project like this to get passed bus factor of 1?
It is a valid concern as to why companies don't do this already. In the face of the legal requirements the initiative is attempting to establish, however, the IP problem would be pretty easily resolved, as companies that sold their server libraries/services with a prohibition on redistribution would either need to change those licenses, or lose customers who want to be able to sell in Europe.
How so? Or, more specifically, what method of action are you predicting will produce those outcomes?
From my observation, smaller studios are vastly more likely than larger ones to already be in compliance with this initiative's requests: It's not the giant, AAA games that are having community servers or peer-to-peer networking. Companies that are doing that already have to change nothing to be in compliance.
Studios that have private, monopolized backends merely need to release their server binaries at the end of life. That's not a significant expense, either (you already have access to file distribution in order to distribute your client in the first place). Assuming that the studio is paying directly for file distribution (not the case for most), and that the server binaries are 100 GB (an obscene over-estimate), and that every single user downloads the server files, you're looking at a couple of cents or so a user. Which again, smaller studios don't pay for file distribution, that's coming out of the platform fees that you're already paying.
The only hard and fast, "this might cost us money" position I can point to is the large studios that release franchises lose the ability to use cutting off people's access to previous games in a series as a motivator to purchase newer ones in the series. And that's an ability exclusively available to massive studios that put out entire franchises of games.
That does happen a lot. They get licenses to use but not distribute software for example. Servers are hard so it makes sense they'd want to buy rather than build.
It's the same reason most games aren't open sourced when their commercial viability ends: lots of third party software with no public source.
Clearly we need such a licensing system, and such license would need to be displayed on the service animal. The lack thereof seems like yet another indicator that our government cannot legislate itself out of a paper bag.
The problem is that when the ADA was passed no one conceived that a change in culture would make it common for people to want to bring their dogs into restaurants and coffee shops.
And now that it is common, there’s no political will to revisit this issue.
There's probably political will at the local or state level in some areas, but of course local and state laws can't override a federal one like the ADA.
I completely agree, though unlike the author I don't really have an issue with people bringing dogs into some kinds of businesses. Restaurants and grocery stores no, but something like a hardware store I'm fine with.
Non-food establishments generally don't ban dogs, or don't enforce it at all. I've taken a dog into many such places. It's my wife's chihuahua, so I just carry her - no risk that she will use the store as a latrine.
I feel a deep sympathy for poor people, especially young people with minimal skills, which is why I think the minimum wage should be abolished. Making it much easier for them to get jobs is an important way for them to start gaining skills and becoming more productive, justifying a higher wage.
We live in an absurd reality. Or do you want to explain to me why Elon can threaten to disassemble the Crew Dragon just to get back at Donald, while somehow we consider women to be too irrational to lead?
Also: all it takes for evil men to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Not voting is not at all the same as voting for Trump. In the first case, the number of votes for Trump remains the same. In the second case, the number of votes for Trump increases by 1, making it easier for him to win. So the statement is false.
reply