Interesting question. I wonder what the default (implied) T&C would be if nothing has been explicitly stated. For example, publishing a source code without an explicit license doesn't make it open source.
Most T&Cs don't mean anything anyway. There are no default T&Cs, there's just the law.
Publishing code without a license doesn't give it an "implicit all-rights-reserved license" - it's just illegal to copy because that's what copyright law says. A license is a conditional waiver of copyright law, a contract where the author promises not to enforce copyright against you if you fulfil certain conditions. (and this is legally binding so they actually can't enforce copyright against you)
I’m pretty sure that the answer you quoted was a joke, mainly because the topic of AI packages comes up all the time on that subreddit and people are starting to make fun of the same question that’s asked every other day.
Codecompanion (Zed-like experience), Avante (Cursor-like experience), and Copilot all exist and integrate well with the rest of the neovim ecosystem.
Reddit has been in a state of hysteria for the past couple of weeks. You’re right that the overall leaning hasn’t changed much, but it was never this crazy, even during Trump’s first term.
It’s a nonstop barrage of nazi labels, overblown news, and comments that “hint” at more direct involvement and violence.
It's so weird that I've even started to doubt whether most of those comments are from real people.
I'm not sure why you're surprised. Reddit has always been left leaning and progressive, and they were making a lot of noise about Trump his first term, especially with the Mueller investigation.
Now you have a huge trade war going on, he keeps threatening the soveriegnty of multiple long time allies, a billionaire has extensive access to government data (the same one that did that nazi salute), along with ICE being ramped up all in the first couple weeks of his term. Our president also ran a crypto scam that made him billions right before his term started. He also keeps joking about running for a third term and is challenging a 150 year constitutional law on birthright citizenship with an executive order. Even you have to admit that this is a lot going on compared to anything we've seen before.
I think that the issue with what's happening on reddit is that it's hard to know what's real or what's not. I think that there is a lot that this administration could be criticized for but the criticism has to be precise and targeted, such that most of the energy goes to the topics that are important.
A lot of comments and energy were expended there. Everyone talked as if it were the end of NATO and that the U.S. was abandoning Europe. In reality, it was just a 20% reduction in force (which was the first sentence in the linked article).
On the flip side, the trade war with Canada deserved heavy criticism—and luckily, it was well covered (I count that as a win).
From the list you just shared, I don't really have a good sense of the relative severity of each and I think it's because there is no place where these topics could be discussed (even HN isn't immune as you can see from one of the comments below)
An alternative take on this is that the opposition doesn't really believe that anything extraordinary is happening and hence there is no strong response outside just some press releases.
I personally tried to follow all the news for a week. I tried to read the articles and research what was shared on reddit. Oftentimes my interpretation of these news wasn't nearly as dramatic as what reddit was aligning on. At the end, I figured it's too much work to double check every single piece of news, so I just stopped using reddit for some time.
There are more ways to get news than reading reddit tho. I still get exposure to the "big" events through HN or simply by talking to my coworkers, and those conversations tend to be a lot more meaningful and nuanced than what I'd normally get on reddit.
Not getting every single detail of a story as it develops isn't really a big deal to me and, I'd also argue that following these news on reddit won't really make you more informed (I already shared one example where the news was discussed but the conversation was entirely off from the reality). Reddit only makes you feel more informed, but that doesn't mean that you actually are.
That's an understatement. Death threats aimed at these young DOGE tech nerds flooded Reddit and Bluesky. Reddit even shut down a popular subreddit to stem the tide.
This is simply incorrect. There was no "flood." There were a very, very small number of isolated comments that I spotted and they were removed and/or downvoted.
I truly despise people who gaslight the way you are right now. Musk did two very blatant Nazi salutes and us right now illegally accessing the US federal payment system. These are unprecedented actions and a strong response to them is hardly "hysteria".
You make a valid point that while the rules of the game are known ahead of time, it’s strange that the entire industry is stuck in this local maximum of LeetCode interviews. Big companies are comfortable with the status quo, and small companies just don’t have the budget to experiment with anything else (maybe with some one-offs).
Sadly, it’s not just the interview loops—the way candidates are screened for roles also sucks.
I’ve seen startups trying to innovate in this space for many years now, and it’s surprising that absolutely nothing has changed.
>I’ve seen startups trying to innovate in this space for many years now, and it’s surprising that absolutely nothing has changed.
I don't want to be too crass, but I'm not surprised people who can startup a business are precisely the ones who hyper-fixate on efficiency when hiring and try to find the best coders. Instead of the best engineers. When you need to put your money where you mouth is, many will squirm back to "what works".
In the Bay Area we had the statues of Ulysses Grant [1], Francis Key [2], and Junipero Serra [3] removed. This isn't even the full list of all the monuments that were labeled "racist" or "oppressive". All was done a couple of years ago.
Are these the traitors you're talking about?
Even if people couldn't dig up anything against the person, the monument could simply be linked to the "wrong part of our history" and be removed, like the Thomas Fallon's statue in San Jose [4]
> On June 19, 2020, the monument was toppled by protestors and defaced with the words "Adios America" in red paint as a response to Grant's brief ownership of a slave.
> Francis Key
> The statue was toppled by vandals on June 19, 2020, in the wake of the murder of George Floyd.
> Juniperro Serra
> Other statues of Junípero Serra were involved as the protests expanded to include monuments of individuals associated with the controversy over the genocide of indigenous peoples in the Americas.
> Thomas Fallon
> Fallon remains a controversial figure in San Jose's history, owing to his role in the American Conquest of California.
Besides Francis Key, which appears to have been vandalized rather than something that people specifically wanted removed, the rest of them do actually have reasons they were taken down? You can disagree with those but they do exist.
My response was a counterexample to the the parent comment which implied that the only statues being removed are the statues of the traitors. None of the people I listed were traitors.
For the people I listed, I'd encourage you to read more about them and form your own opinion instead of just quoting back from the links I shared earlier.
There is very little reason to believe that Serra treated the indigenous people differently from the rest of his mission or that he didn't believe in what he was preaching. Similarly, almost nothing is known about why Grant had William Jones for a year, but Grant's character had been proven through years of real action - fighting the war and, later, fighting the KKK.
People just clung to some speculative theories, interpreted them in the least charitable way, and get offended by it. While everyone else sees that the topic was labeled as "racist" or "controversial" and tries to distance themselves from it.
1. I think it’s also fair to say that since the interview, Mark Rutte has come out and said that NATO countries need to increase their spending to be able to protect themselves. Countries like Poland, Sweden, and Lithuania (possibly more, though I haven’t followed this closely) have shared the same opinion. Paraphrasing Tusk's comments, wanting your allies to be stronger can hardly be considered a hostile move.
2. The only thing to add here is that, over time, this has morphed from “not ruling out the use of force” to “threatening the use of force.” Either way, I agree, it’s not a good look.
3. To counterbalance, the EU has been using US tech companies as a piggy bank for many years now, yet that hasn’t hindered collaboration between the US and Europe.
NATO isn’t dead but is likely only going to grow stronger. FVEY will probably continue, especially on initiatives where everyone stands to benefit.
> the EU has been using US tech companies as a piggy bank for many years now,
Ouch ouch... I have to tell you that you got this backwards. Those tech companies are very happy to hoard billions of dollars from EU citizens. The problem is more that they don't like competition and have utmost disrespect for human rights like privacy. There were lawsuits for the very basic thing of ANTI-COMPETITIVE behavior.
The real tragedy US people do not even know anymore what a healthy, competitive economy does entail. US companies do not like to compete, they like to kill competition.
I did not even mention they facilitate illegal stuff, poison society with disinformation and function as a springboard for adversary states. Those slaps on the wrist were a shame. Google, Apple and MS should have had received a ban for 20 years, but the EU has been to late to decouple, and now they find themselves in the grip of tech oligarchs.
(Luckily, some of them are also openly nazi-supporters, otherwise the Afd would miss some keynote speakers).
Nice story, but it doesn’t really match the reality I’ve seen.
One example: I was involved in the implementation of Article 15/17 at one of the FAANG companies. Throughout the process, we had many meetings with governmental bodies in the EU and, specifically, with the European CMOs (many of these are government controlled in Europe). It was clear as day that all they wanted from us was to pay up. It was literal extortion and had nothing to do with helping the "creatives" or fair competition or anything else.
Man, that sounds unfair. If I would be the owner of a FAANG company, I would tell the EU to fuck themselves instead of using them as a piggy bank. Why do those FAANG companies still want to do business there? It almost sounds like the EU wants companies to pay taxes and fines if they violate the law.
An alternative theory is that you were not in every relevant meeting.
I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I totally don't buy it. And you understand why.
> I would tell the EU to fuck themselves instead of using them as a piggy bank. Why do those FAANG companies still want to do business there?
Maybe because no one makes business decisions based on emotions? The situation could be unfair but you might still choose to continue to engage just because it's beneficial for the company for all other reasons. All things considered, they still make money in that region, maybe not as much as they would have made otherwise.
> An alternative theory is that you were not in every relevant meeting.
I'm telling you what we heard directly from the gov agencies and you're saying that I wasn't in the right meetings? Maybe, but I at least have some first-hand knowledge to share here and not just snarky comments.
> I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I totally don't buy it. And you understand why.
No, I don't understand why and I'm not very interested in continuing this conversation either. You don't seem to have much to add it.
Well, let me be clear. No government can extort you here. There are laws. If you found the government agency in violation of the law, you should take it to the right court.
(A FAANG company usually has a lawyer or two. In an extreme case a fine would have been handled as a settlement for a complex series of violations by the company. The FAANG lawyer would understand it if the company still had a case or not. We know that FAANG companies have been in violation of various laws. Maybe FAANG got lucky and got a deal. That is unfair, I think a market access ban for several years is more fair for all people. The EU doesn't have a Trump. What you experienced was most likely competent and educated personnel from its executive branch. But you did not understand what your company did wrong. Hate me now, thank me later for giving a reality check.)
I fail to see why a scientist won’t be interested in the grant now. Maybe if you’re talking about some areas like social sciences, yes, but for everything else not much seems to have changed.
I have not been paid because my salary is funded by an NSF grant and they've shut down the payment system and cancelled payments. (It is still down.) I'm not in the social sciences, I'm in mathematics.
The instability this has created has me looking to leave academia as quickly as possible; I'm sure others in similar situations are having the same thoughts. This has wreaked havoc on all of academia.
Thank you for providing extra context! I can see why the unpredictability of the entire system could make people not even consider applying in the future.
Sorry to hear that this happened to you. I hope they will provide some way to sort this out soon.
It's all about stability and predictability. Science, like other forms of business, favors an environment without sudden regulatory changes. Sudden changes make the government an unreliable partner incapable of committing to anything beyond the next elections.
If the dominant ideology changes, it should only affect future grants, not current grants. Ideally, grants that have already been submitted or are close to submission should be evaluated according to the old rules. Otherwise a lot of time and effort will go to waste.
The post you responded to is merely giving evidence that the GP's overall claim "Any of these text problems where you're tying to optimize over a whole corpus is kind of not hard to see to be NP-complete" is sometimes not true in surprising ways -- Knuth conjectured that there was no linear time algorithm for longest common substring (but then suffix trees came along).
