The contract details are outlined in the blog post. Depending on the number of hours worked to fix some issues, it is likely fair.
> Contract terms were roughly as follows:
> * Uber reports issues to github.com/ziglang/zig and pings Loris.
> * Loris assigns it to someone in ZSF.
> * Hack hack hack hack hack.
> * When done, Loris enters the number of hours worked on the issue.
>
> Uber has a right to ZSF members’ time. We have no decision or voting power whatsoever with regards to Zig. We have right to offer suggestions, but they have been and will be treated just like from any other third-party bystander. We did not ask for special rights, it’s explicit in the contract, and we don’t want that.
You listed three Google products. Those are not alphabet companies. No one is trying to say Google is smalltime. Rather the point is, “Meta as an entity is comparable to Google, not Alphabet because it’s Units are Interesting”
I listed 4 actually, all with their OWN household name with plenty of users.
Under the Google umbrella or alphabet is the same. Just like under Facebook or Meta.
Nobody cares about the exact legal construction of those products. Plenty of people still say FANG, where it's short for Google and not Alphabet.
Nice nitpick, but you obviously mispositioned your initial comment by putting the emphasis on household names and not on the legal structure, which is a strange argument fyi.
Part 2 of the videos mentions that Notch replied, saying that he doesn’t remember where the image is from, and that it’s likely coming from a world generated with a random seed.
robots.txt is really only supposed to be used for blocking the Internet Archives first snapshot, and not to remove existing snapshots – and even this might not be the case in the future as they try to preserve most snapshots. They made a few policy changes last year[1] to how they handle robots.txt files, to handle cases where a domain is sold and a new robots.txt file would result in deleting old data among other things.
Hmm, that may be what it's meant for, but pretty sure it can currently be used to block things retroactively too. IA may still have it in the archive, but won't let viewers view it.
No? The article you linked says they've stopped paying attention to robots.txt for US government and military sites, but it looks like it still retroactively removes visibility for everything else.
I guess IA could change their practices. If medium or people like them start actively using robots.txt to try to retroactively remove things from visibility in the archive, perhaps IA will change their practices/policy. I would welcome it.
Interesting. I wasn't aware that it no longer applies retroactively. Even so, medium.com's robots.txt still doesn't try to block new crawling by the Internet Archiver:
It seems unlikely to me that they would deliberately go to this length to prevent archival, yet not attempt to prevent it happening to begin with. Furthermore, as mentioned in your link, they still accept removal requests via email.
"master/slave" evokes the unhappy history of slavery, which people care about to widely varying degrees.
"leader/follower" or "primary/replica" are much more neutral terms that won't prompt negative emotions in many people.
People who choose one of the latter two options do so either because they feel it is more accurate, or because they wish to avoid the negative connotations of "master/slave", or a mix of both.
It's better to stick to tried and true terminology that everybody understands than to needlessly introduce new and redundant designations for concepts that have been in use for decades, just to avoid upsetting rather irrational American sensibilities.
Leader/follower and primary/replica are common terminology now. It's unfair to paint the sensibilities as irrational - this is exactly an example of the kind of nonchalance that helps lead to underrepresentation of minorities in tech.
You might not care, but there are a lot of people that do. Taking steps like this improves the comfort level others while affecting yours none. Why is that not worth it?
So now we have three pairs of terms that apparently mean exactly the same thing. I'm sure that whatever "minorities in tech" are more interested in not being needlessly confused, than not seeing the word "slave". Who would even think of this in terms of human slavery, and why would it be connected to american minorities only?
