Agreed. I dread having to use Algolia search on documentation these days. The search results feel pretty naively selected, and the UI is pretty poor. I get that people want to deploy static sites, but can we please find a way to bring back search _pages_?
For interested parties, the Museum of Pop Culture (stylized as MoPOP) is the new name of the Experience Music Project (EMP) as of 2017. This was to reflect its wider scope into science fiction, fantasy, and popular culture at large.
It’s a magnificent museum and worth any lengths to visit.
I'm referring to the taxi medallion owners are benefiting from passing legislation that limits rideshare licenses going forward at the potential expense of residences, particularly those affected by the shutdown.
The article makes it seem like the company is forcing pescatarianism (not vegetarianism) down people's throats. But unless you're eating the majority of your meals at work events, I don't see this as being the case. This new policy seems pretty consistent with policies which limit how much alcohol (if any) one can expense.
> The German proliferation of knowledge created a curious situation that hardly anyone is likely to have noticed at the time. Sigismund Hermbstädt, for example, a chemistry and pharmacy professor in Berlin, who has long since disappeared into the oblivion of history, earned more royalties for his "Principles of Leather Tanning" published in 1806 than British author Mary Shelley did for her horror novel "Frankenstein," which is still famous today.
In the absence of copyrights, and with plagiarism being rampant (as the article claims) how could authors command favorable royalty agreements? Could a rival publisher not just print the same book, sans royalty agreement, and undercut the original publisher?
The printers would have been able to sell fresh material, and perhaps the payments to the authors were insignificant if the volume was high enough. Competitors would also have had to replicate the work of typesetting and printing, which would take a while.
These bikes that end up in the water are presumably not being thrown in by bike riders, but by vandals and pranksters. Is it possible that some of the poorly-parked bikes are also the work of individuals just looking to cause trouble?
Though I like the UW's efforts to improve the situation by creating designated bike-share parking, and having the companies enforce it via GPS, I suspect the long term solution to badly parked bicycles will be for these companies to abandon docklessness.
This is odd to me because Certbot and Boulder, the projects I have the most connection with for my job, both have paid contributors, in each case paid by 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations (EFF and ISRG)¹. Both are free software projects with "standard open source licenses" and neither project ever charges fees to any user, although Certbot displays messages soliciting optional donations to the non-profits in question.
Is this really what the author of the definition intended?
¹ Also, three for-profit companies have "seconded" developers or documentation writers to Certbot at various points and at least one other one was planning to and then didn't go through with it.
... also, no project that takes advantage of this offer can participate in GSOC because then it would have a paid developer?
It could be what they intended. It's a good way to be sure they only provide free services to projects that would never be paying customers. If an organization can pay someone to work on an open-source project, they could also pay Gitlab to provide services to that project.
That's a very good point. Maybe "noncommercial" here is in fact meant to capture something like "lacking in financial resources" rather than literally "noncommercial".
The definition was made by 1password and we reused that. We do want to extend this offer to Certbot and Boulder. You can reference this HN comment to make sure your application gets excepted. And because we owe a lot to Let's Encrypt we'll also trow in the support for free if you need it.
I don't know if these specific projects plan to switch to GitLab, but I appreciate your offer very much, and if the topic comes up I'll certainly pass it along.
I was just thinking of this situation as an example of an uncertainty in the current definition of "noncommercial", rather than a practical problem that we faced immediately.
But again, thanks for chiming in and thanks for the offer.
No paid contributors? So, projects like Vue would not qualify because Evan You gets paid through Patreon? What about open source contributors from companies like Facebook or Google? They get paid.
It's hard to imagine a single open source project that doesn't have some sort of commercial contribution or sponsorship!
edit, response to detaro:
FB and Google should definitely pay to host their own projects, but many of their engineers contribute to projects all across GitHub!
That is a lot better than nothing, but they still need to fix that -- if I submit a patch as part of my job, the project now has paid contributers, even if they don't know it.
Can I host a copy of the Linux kernel on ultimate/gold?
If not, then any person can make a fork of an OSS project and charge 1 cent and it is now a "commercial" project and can no longer be hosted on ultimate/gold. It is not defined and Gitlab can use this ambiguity to at any moment start seeking rent...
I remember listening to WFMU's station manager recount one of the times he had to fire a (volunteer) DJ: the DJ was selling ad time on his show. He got away with it for a while because his show was not in English.
It seems that ads were also a motivation for the long-running show JM in the AM to leave the station.
> WFMU, licensed as a non-profit radio station, adheres to the guidelines of charitable and non-commercial radio. With the move of ‘JM in the AM’ exclusively to NSN, the program, its host, its content and its reach will be allowed greater creative flexibility and sponsorship opportunities. [1]
I mean, in C++ "=" could be called "dangerouslySetAribtraryMemoryLocation" and it would be just as accurate. In native code, even trivial operations like concatenating two strings or setting a variable can cause arbitrary code to execute.
strcat (or, honestly, anything in string.h). strcat assumes its first argument has enough allocated space for the contents of the 2nd argument, and that the 2nd argument is NULL terminated. If either of those assumptions is wrong, strcat will overwrite memory, corrupting either your heap or your stack, both of which can lead to arbitrary code execution. It's laughably easy to do, so easy that even typing the letters `strcat` into your program is forbidden in basically every C/C++ shop.
Nah it's both. C++ was deliberately designed to be a superset of C. It's diverged a little bit, but it's mostly still the case. Or, call it `std::strcat` if you like.
reply