Years back I worked somewhere where we had to PDF documents to e-fax them to a supplier. We eventually found out that on their end it was just being received digitally and auto-converted to PDF.
It was never made paper.. So we asked if we could just email the PDF instead of paying for this fax service they wanted.
There was a comment here on HN, I think, that explained why enterprises spend so much money on garbage software. It turned out that the garbage software was a huge improvement on what they did before, so it was still a savings in time and money and easier than a total overhaul.
I wonder what horror of process and machinery the supplier used before the fax->PDF process.
I once worked on a janky, held-together-with-duct-tape-and-bubblegum distributed app written in Microsoft Access. Yes, Microsoft Access for everything, no central server, no Oracle, no Postgres. Data was shared between client and server by HTTP downloads of zipped-up Access .mdb files which got merged into the clients' main database.
The main architect of the app told me, "Before we came along, they wer doing all this with Excel spreadsheets. This is a vast improvement!"
This is somewhat ironic, given that it was systemd that replaced the battle-tested systems that came before it, and variants of your comment were used to argue against it.
Sysvinit was brittle as hell. It was bad at preventing races (hence no parallelization), in part because it couldn't give guarantees on which services had started when, and if they started at all.
At this point Systemd its unit files are in a really nice place, to the point where Systemd can often guarantee correctness now.
Chat V3 discusses the events: violent government crackdown, human rights violations, censoring.
R1 evades answering, stating the topic is sensitive in China (simlar how it reacts to American sensitive topics)
With web search enabled, R1 discusses the found sources (which are not censored, and the model does not add any censoring as far as I can tell, certainly not enough to respect the Chinese governments stance.)
Yes they censorship seems to be done at the RLHF level and is easy to evade when you know what you're looking for. Refusals happen around 80% of the time for me.
Interestingly, even the 8B version, distilled from Llama 3 repeats CCP propaganda just fine.
I think you are not very accurate about “open source product” vs something like “community led project”.
People being able to adapt their software to their own needs by making changes to the code is exactly what open source is about. This is good.
What is a problem though, is to have the code merged in the main repository requires you to gift them the rights to your code (not just license it).
They are also not very clear about this in the summary of their CLA: “You're giving Zed permission to use and share your contributions (like original works or modifications).” which could be misunderstood to just be a usual open source licensing agreement, but seems to be complete handover of copyright: https://zed.dev/cla
This is not good, and something people should be more aware of when contributing.
> requires you to gift them the rights to your code (not just license it).
The legally binding section only talks about giving them an infinite free license to it. It does not say you hand over your copyright, so the summary seems correct.
I still don't think you should sign it. The editor code seems to be variously under GPL, AGPL and Apache 2.0, all of which would be fine without one.
No, I don't mean it from like a licensing or legal perspective at all. I'm thinking more of vibes and ethos.
There is something strange where you are sort of making your product better through open source contributions and yet all of the capital gains from your company's eventual sale will only go to you.
There is something really weird and nasty about that.
Giving good individual feedback requires effort and is low priority.
Those things tend to not happen without requiring complicated feelings to be involved.
For me, the small contrast on pages like HN (in particular with any of the gray text) strains my eyes because it’s more effort for me to see the letters.
But I also read a reasonable amount of PDFs (black on white) which is relatively comfortable on most of my monitors (LCDs with generally low brightness setting to have less light shine into my eyes).
I think what I am saying is, I agree that what is comfortable depends on the user, so websites not moving off the defaults is better, because then users can configure what works for them.
Addendum: The low contrast example on the article is very uncomfortable to read for me.
This seems to be a good tagline for a HN audience that kinda clicks a link blind and wants to figure out what it is quickly and move on.
But it’s unclear to me why the Forgejo website should care about this type of visitor? Being a “forge” is likely well understood by anyone that is interested in installing this type of software (or they will figure it out because of the context that linked them to the page). None of the features you mention is a good discriminator, as essentially all forges have these features in one form or another, so an interested use will have to look at the details anyway. Being: “self-hosted, lightweight, easy to maintain” those are very important quick discriminators if you are looking at this type of software.
> I understand your first language is German. Figures.
I assume your argument is: “Everyone who had to learn English as a second language is so used to completely random pronunciation that they won’t complain about anything anymore”.
It's just that German is close enough to Esperanto that I'm personally not particularly interested in what a German speaker thinks about the name. Ask a Mandarin/Japanese/Arabic/Ewe/Telugu/etc. speaker what they think.
(My first language is quite far away from both English and Esperanto, probably should have mentioned that in the original message.)
Maybe, but the pronunciation of the forge part is essentially just the English one (at least much, much closer to an attempted German pronunciation).
The jo part is close to German though, so maybe this is why it’s not too bad for someone who knows English and German. And everyone else gets to dislike at least some part of it :-)
While I understand the utility of separating contexts and making “distractions” from the current context harder to access. Doesn’t better integration into your system window management kinda defeat this separation again? Is there a significant difference in having a porn tab open or a porn windows open?
It’s great if this separation works for you and your current setup, but what does prevent future you from building muscle memory to quickly switch back to porn when you want to procrastinate your taxes?
You can add friction when switching contexts using the desktop environment. This is largely impossible with browsers since they largely aren't meaningfully customizable. Opening a tab and navigating to a website is generally speaking something like 4-6 keypresses. On a desktop you can for example add more clicks by put all your launchers in a folder structure grouped by task.
Though I actually set up different user accounts for different tasks, then only add shortcuts for the tools that are in any way relevant for the given context. This creates deliberate friction when context switching, and requires upfront intent when selecting what I do. It's not that anything is off limits per se, but all undesirable state changes are made awkward. I simply can't check my email from my programming account, or check the build status on my social media account.
If I want to go from monitoring a build on CI to e.g. paying the bills, I'd have to log out from the work account and shut everything down, then log into the business account, and open the bank SSB. This makes doing these particular tasks as easy as ever, but directionless task switching a serious pain in the ass.
While I am glad that you seem to have found a new workflow that you like, your description strikes me as a personal experience.
I am aware that a lot of people use searches as a form of navigation, but it’s also very common that people use bookmarks, speed dial, history, pinned tabs, and other browser features instead of searching.
My Firefox is configured to not do online searches when I type into the address bar, instead I get only history suggestions. This setup allows for quick navigation, and does not require any steps to set up new pages that I need to visit.
What I want to say that while you seem to imply that you found a different pattern of use that many people will soon migrate to, I think these patterns have always been popular. People discover and make use of them as needed.
It’s also strange that you put such a negative sentiment on interconnected documents. Do you not realize how important these connections were for you to be able to reach the point you are at now? How else would you have found the things that are useful to you? By watching ads?
Search engines are also … really not really a good example of the strengths of the interconnected web, as they are mostly a one way thing. Consider instead a Hacker News discussion about a blog, and some other blog linking to that discussion, creating these interconnected but still separate communities and documents.
> It’s also strange that you put such a negative sentiment on interconnected documents. Do you not realize how important these connections were for you to be able to reach the point you are at now? How else would you have found the things that are useful to you? By watching ads?
This is specifically in the context of getting things done, not e.g. reading an interesting article for the enjoyment, but as an indirect means accomplish a task.
