Depends on what you're doing, the "source-available" model may not work. Because many software earns their money through just few tricks, maybe it's more user-friendly design, maybe it's better predictive algorithm etc. These tricks hidden deep in the logic so it's hard for the competitors to figure out in months time.
But if you made the source code available, the trick will be reveled in plan sight and you lose advantage quickly. After that, you turned software making a laborer's game (you need add laborer to add and/or steal ideas faster than your competitors), it's way less fun.
If you want to make money, you have to play the art of balance. How much do you want to make open, and how much advantage you want to withhold.
I wish I saw this comment two years ago while the stock price of one of our local company is still cheap. I sold all my shared before the price slightly tanked, earning just around 14% profit. Now two years later the price has gone up ~100% and they paid dividends twice during the time.
Should have treated it the old-fashion way, not the modern day-trading way.
First thing is, if your service has 7 call layers, maybe it's just too deep.
Second thing is, I found that retry strategy works the best if you define it based on what the nodes are actually doing (instead of treating them as generic nodes). For example, if node D is a database failing a transaction, you may just configure it to retry the transaction instead of doing an application-initialized request resubmit, because the database probably knows better about why the transaction has failed than the application connected to it.
Third thing is, retry is worth it only when progress has been and/or can still be made. If the resources is no longer available forever, then there's no point of retrying.
The problem about AI censorship is that, you can't preform bans without also create privileges at the same time. Sure, you can censor your AI to provide a "safe" version to the public, but someone will have the access/privilege to the uncensored version.
What stops the CEOs or even employees of the AI firms from creating something harmful such as WMDs etc themselves? They almost definitely already have that access. And this is not a zero-possibility thing, given how some of the top CEOs has preformed these years. Remember that one guy who did a \o salute in public, and the private island thing?
If Americans don't like Chinese AI, all cool. But then maybe they should start true open AI companies to build for the betterment of mankind instead of letting these few for-profit CEOs daily yelling nonsensical lies to cover those profit-seeking sinister asses.
// Before template expansion, .git was removed so that a fresh repo can be initialized; remove it again in case
// some template variable usage has conflicted with this directory and impacts git operations.
if err := root.RemoveAll(".git"); err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("unable to remove .git folder")
}
Why the `err` isn't carried by the error message? For security? Then maybe log it internally?
User/operator can't really fix the problem if you keep giving them information this vague.
If I may guess, given how delicate chem or bio weapons are, even if AI can lay out a method to create one, the first thing the weapon would destroy is likely it's creator(s).
Of course, with the exception that such weapon is created by organized crime groups, such as drug cartels such.
Probably don't worry nation states tho, these guys already got way worse things in their warehouses than what individual baddies could ever imagine.
Speak of that, I'm kinda surprised not one Full Self-Driving enabled Tesla has ever sneak out of their owner's locked garage to rob a bank or something.
Wonder what's up with the GNUnet (https://www.gnunet.org). Apparently there's still activity on it's development, but I didn't see adaptation/integration, even in free software like Linux. Sure it's not 1.0 yet, but the open source world is filled with sub 1.0 software that works great.
A stable online identify is important, that's maybe why you rent those domains etc. But after rent and forego quite a few, I slowly realized that domain at it's current format isn't a stable presence, instead it's more like branding instead of an identify. If an identify can be operated by different people without it's previous operator agreeing, is it truly an identify?
But I do need an identify, always under my control as much as possible, so people can trust the content and service running on it without having to guess if it's still me operating it.
Gnunet was and is incredibly advanced technology, solving many problems better than most p2p systems that came after, who never bothered to even look at those ideas, and implemented worse concepts from scratch (IPFS, veilid, libp2p...) However, it is exclusively academic, and the authors let themselves be distracted too much. The system was mainly developed by grad students who mostly leave after they have completed a barely working proof of concept for their thesis.
It never had enough functionality running smoothly enough to attract a meaningful community, which would have been a prerequisite for a p2p network. It is so sad.
They made it sound like it, but this is not a victory at all, this is a temporary strategic compromise to silence the most sensitive/foreseen privacy advocator for now. But they will not stop here, instead they'll keep advancing the mechanisms, opinions and laws, so one day when the pieces aligned, they can come back to turn this tap off while having people lied to their side.
Forced age verification needs to be abolished completely and people who advocated for it punished to the point that their political career ends, this should be the baseline.
But of course, based on my understanding of everything, no, nobody will do anything effective against it. Everyone will just be "Yeah... they forced a component on my system that could act as spyware to monitor me, then have me pay for it without give me any control. But guess what, I will accept it because they said it's good for the future of mankind", like a peasant would. This is the tax you paid ended up for you, you know?
California making this law is but one domino, but if you can't or won't see the bigger picture of the cascade of dominos, then yes, you are the naive one. And there is a need to comment with guns ablazin', this is existential for humanity on a long enough time horizon.
This should be the top comment (minus the first line which, while not untrue, probably doesn't help the message)
We need solidarity to push back against this.
The corporate and government systems we have built are the original paperclip maximizers.
They/collectively "we" are creating an enclosure around all of humanity... Systematically eliminating privacy, liberty and freedom.
Increasingly, the matrix has all of us, and it didn't even need to put us in scifi stasis pods - turns out fiat currency + inflation/infinite growth + resource scarcity + digital markets + internet + smartphones/IoT/devices is already a pretty effective matrix substrate..
But if you made the source code available, the trick will be reveled in plan sight and you lose advantage quickly. After that, you turned software making a laborer's game (you need add laborer to add and/or steal ideas faster than your competitors), it's way less fun.
If you want to make money, you have to play the art of balance. How much do you want to make open, and how much advantage you want to withhold.
reply