I think it is pretty well established that simply re-reading can trick you into thinking that you know the material (via recognition) instead of actually remembering/understanding.
Sadly I never thought to trying to publish a white paper with my co workers while I was working on this. I'd love the chance to do so. We did do many internal company presentations on the matter however.
That being said as far as I know there isn't any published works on a "Reverse Query Engine" or RQM for short which is the name we settled on internally for this subsystem within Firestore.
It was briefly discussed in this episode of floss weekly https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/622?autostart=fa... and I think the guest made an interesting observation in that quite a big issue in FSF is that the board is entirely self-selected, the community is not really involved. Thus, the future of the GPL is entirely in the hand of a few people who picked themselves so to say.
>Thus, the future of the GPL is entirely in the hand of a few people who picked themselves so to say.
What does this even mean? As Linux staying on v2 shows, the FSF doesn't have any real control over GPL licenses. And I'm fairly sure the only limitation on modifying the GPL myself is I couldn't use the word "GNU."
The FSF can issue new versions of the GPL, which will automatically apply to software licensed under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 with the "or any later version" clause (which is present in the standard boilerplate).
A completely non-representative grep through copyright information indicates that about two-thirds of the GPL-licensed packages on my Debian system have the "or any later version" clause.
>which will automatically apply to software licensed under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 with the "or any later version" clause (which is present in the standard boilerplate).
Unless I'm missing something, the "or any later" clause means that a new GPL would cause further software releases to be dual licensed as GPL v2/3 and 4. The project could choose to go to v4 only, or continue releasing it under both.
I can only imagine that causing problems if they say released a non copyleft v4, and it's hard to see that surviving a legal challenge.
> Unless I'm missing something, the "or any later" clause means that a new GPL would cause further software releases to be dual licensed as GPL v2/3 and 4.
It also causes past releases to be immediately and retroactively available under the GPL v4 (in addition to the GPL v2/v3 it was already available under). As such the FSF has the power to make a large amount of software available under a new license.
> I can only imagine that causing problems if they say released a non copyleft v4, and it's hard to see that surviving a legal challenge.
A hypothetical GPLv4 has to be similar in spirit to the previous GPL licenses, but the devil's in the details -- just look at the prolonged debates about GPLv3. Depending on the exact details it might not be acceptable to parts of the free software community.
> hypothetical GPLv4 has to be similar in spirit to the previous GPL licenses,
This doesn't cause an issue though, the software is still licensed under v3. A more restrictive v4 can be ignored, an issue would only arrise from a less restrictive v4.
Significant portion of the text on Wikipedia is now dual licensed Creative Commons and GFDL (specifically unversioned), something that was made possible by change introduced in later version of GFDL (1.3, afaik) that didn't exist in earlier one.
Yes. They call this excision[0] and it leaves an Audi table hole in the timeline which lets you attach metadata like why there is missing data while still removing the data.
It's difficult to implement this by hand, though. What you'll have in storage are encoded blobs of chunks of some kind of sorted set tree structure. So if you are to poke the data directly like that, I would assume it is much easier to just do an offline backup and a restore, and filter the data in the restore process somehow, which I believe is possible.
Likewise. I started with pre-algebra level stuff and I just login when I have some free time and watch more videos and do more exercises. I figure every time I jump on there and do some of it, I'm improving that foundation.
I've also been running through the series of Youtube videos on Calculus I by Professor Leonard. The plan is to go through his entire sequence (Calc I, II and III) and then move on to Linear Algebra (I've already been dabbling in that as well, mostly with the 3blue1brown videos).
It's not easy, but I think it's worth the effort to build up that math base. It increases the scope of things you can read, study and understand, which is pretty valuable.
Sure, there is a massive difference. I think society should support the former, but not the latter.
But those arguing for socialised medicine aren't arguing that society should help the gunshot victim, they're arguing that the money to do so should be coerced from members of society. That coercion is morally wrong, regardless of how worthy the recipient is.
Also, if societal support were voluntary, people could choose between supporting the gunshot victim or the bank.
No, "coercing" money from people isn't morally wrong, it's part of the social contract. I'm a pacifist, but I still recognize that the sort of society left undefended doesn't last long so I pay the share of taxes that go to the military. Trade becomes difficult without roads, so every member of a vibrant economy pays for the infrastructure necessary to conduct that trade. I extend that to healthcare. A sick populous is less productive and less desirable.
Also, and this is a serious question: what is your definition of pacifism, that it allows for coercive funding? I assume here that you support the arrest and jailing of those who refuse to pay tax (and their probable death, should they refuse to be arrested either).
