There's a theory that changing regulation Q to uncap interest rates on savings accounts had more to do with ending stagflation than the fed funds rate hikes.
I'm not smart enough to fully evaluate if that's true, but it was an interesting theory to me at least.
Aren't chips + memory constrained by process + reticle size? And therefore, how much HBM you can stuff around the compute chip? I'd expect everyone to more or less support the same model size at the same time because of this, without a very fundamentally different architecture.
The state regulators of Texas? Unless you're trying to manage your own health, the state is not concerned about you. If you're a gas/power company, they only want to know what regulations you want removed/enacted. They definitely aren't "getting you" for being part of bigEnergy
I get why the CLI is so complicated, but I will say AI has been great at figuring out what I need to run given an English language input. It's been one of the highest value uses of AI for me.
>The BSD-3 license, under which NetBird has operated until now, is a permissive license. It was instrumental in our early growth, offering maximum flexibility and encouraging wide adoption. However, this permissiveness also presents a significant long-term challenge with an imbalance where the value created by a community can be captured and privatized, ultimately undermining the sustainability of the open-source project itself. Well, AGPLv3 addresses this imbalance.
How is this logic not literally Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?
>How is this logic not literally Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?
It is exactly that. We need more free software which is actually free for everyone and every use case in all the senses of free. We don't need more "free software" except there are owners who get to control who uses it, how they use it, and how they can make money with it.
There is SO MUCH WASTE that could be eliminated by a few developers getting paid decent salaries to put their work into the public domain (by this I mean BSD style very permissive licenses).
Imagine a grant giving organization that companies were encouraged to give a hundredth of a percent of their revenue to which focused on paying full time developers to build and maintain fully featured tools which are the most useful to society as a whole.
I have said a lot of times that I feel like people keep trying to reinvent a state and taxes to pay for shared infrastructure with open source maintenance. I don’t know how to use the state to solve the problem without severely degrading the quality of what gets built though.
I don't want the state to do it. I would prefer a future where the state becomes less necessary because folks just do stuff themselves. The state already gives tax incentives for donations to nonprofits, so it's not inventing something new. Open source software where people contribute their work to share with nothing expected in return is an early signal of something I'm hoping will become a major feature of a post-scarcity economy. People "working" for the benefit of everyone on their own without expectation of returns (and receiving the benefits of others who do the same). It's not clear that it will be possible for the whole economy to work this way, but there are plenty of things where people want to do work to share because they choose to and it just eliminates a whole bunch of unnecessary work when "for hire" things can be replaced by "for free".
That's a weird take. If another $company wants to continue development with BSD-3 license, they can do so starting today and nothing of value would be lost.
The change is NetBird company saying, the improvements from now on are AGPLv3 licensed, but that doesnt stop from anyone to fork today and continue with BSD-3 license.
https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/the-problem-with-bossbabe-l...
reply