There's actually an advantage to using older editions, and that is that it lowers the MSRV (minimum supported Rust version). This is especially nice for libraries, while binary project usually can just use the latest edition.
There are only paperbacks. By "hardcopy", they meant "printed".
I sell print editions through Amazon KDP and IngramSpark. Amazon is the lion's share, so I designed the print edition based on the formats they offer. At the time I started working on it, KDP only supported soft covers. They added hard covers right as I was finishing the book, and I didn't want to have to go back and redo everything.
I have to admit that "Crafting Interpreters" is pushing the limits for what you can get away with on a soft cover. When I first started writing the book, I expected it to be (much) shorter, but I just estimated wrong.
If I had a time machine, I might go back and tell myself to print it as two separate volumes.
I'm not sure how these services work, but are you planning to offer hard covers as well for a "next print"?
I've had my eye on Crafting Interpreters for a bit now, and I don't mind paying extra for a nicer version — especially if it's going into the pockets of an independent writer.
If I do a second edition, I'll probably think about it then. I don't have any plans to touch the book any time soon. I worked on it every single day for six years, so when it was done, I was really ready to be done working on it.
I would argue that this isn't "normal open source", though it is indeed not locked behind a login on their website. The license (1) is feels very much proprietary, even if the source code is available.
"2.7 You may not use the Software for the purpose of developing competing products or technologies or assist a third party in such activities."
vs
"California’s public policy provides that every contract that restrains anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is, to that extent, void, except under limited statutory exceptions."
“To that extent” in this context means that the remainder of the contract stays valid. The interpretation you state is not only incorrect, it would be toothless to introduce it because people could simply work around it by adding that clause and arguing that it constitutes a sufficient exception under the law.
As for why the “to the extent” phrasing exists, consider an example: an employment contract consists of two clauses, A: that prevents the employee from disclosing confidential customer data to third parties, and B: a non-compete clause (which does come under the same provision mentioned by grandparent). If the employer ever sues an employee for violation of A, they shouldn’t be allowed to argue that they aren’t subject to it because of clause B.
Hey, that's a real argument, and it makes sense. Thank you for helping to clarify this topic.
Question: why would NVIDIA, makers of general intelligence, which seems to compete with everyone, publish code for software nobody can use without breaking NVIDIA rules? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if they just kept that code private?
FYI, the FTC noncompete rule does not go into effect until September, and it specifically carves out an exception to the rule for existing noncompetes for senior executives
For Fastmail, I could not quickly find their policy.
However, I do occasionally receive some emails on my fastmail user address which are not my own, which may indicate that Fastmail user addresses become available after unsubscribing.
The emails are from Steam, with 2FA login codes; I assume they only send those with prior email verification. With only the email address it is apparently not possible to contact Steam and tell them this is not my account (you need to login to contact support, or know a username). The danger here is that many websites (not just Steam) assume an email address is "forever", and the same address can not be used by anybody else.
Fastmail allows to reuse the email when an account is closed. Just before looking this up I tended to be very strongly pro fastmail. Have been using them for years as well. Now I'm not so sure anymore. Because reusing email addresses is quite sketchy :/
> Once an account has been deleted, the username and any addresses on the account can be re-used.
I regularly receive emails sent to a person that enjoys using my email to subscribe to spam. I've also received stuff from another that used it for school and even their bank account.
And if you think verification does it, someone used their phone number and my email to register to Uber. I'd receive all their invoices and stuff. I couldn't log in because that needed phone verification. And it took quite a few rounds of Uber tech support to get them to remove my email.
> Any team that is part of a managed organization with public repositories and GitHub Enterprise Cloud users will be able to enable this feature on their respective repository and start streamlining their team’s pull requests immediately.
I'm a bit sad that the merge queue is not available for personal accounts. I was hoping have it replace Bors, which has been deprecated since May 1st, 2023.
Yes. GitHub reserving features for organizations has kind of kludged up the whole service. Draft PRs for instance really should be available to everyone. I suspect they’re trying to do it as some sort of value add, but none of the features they are reserving are worth paying for on their own. It’s just an annoyance.
reply