Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | luke5441's commentslogin

LGPL means "gift to the world". The license ensures that any modification/improvements stay a gift to the world.

People not being okay with having to share their improvements not being able to use the software is by design.

I don't get how you get from there to some sinister hostage taking situation.

Also everyone that contributes to the previous LGPL verison probably contributed under LGPL only, so it is now just one guy...


LGPL applies to the LGPL’d code, not to every piece of code someone might add to the repository or under the same name implicitly.

The claim being made is that because some prior implementation was licensed one way, all other implementations must also be licensed as such.

AIUI the code has provenance in Netscape, prior to the chardet library, and the Netscape code has provenance in academic literature.

Now the question of what constitutes a rewrite is complex, and maybe somewhat more complex with the AI involvement, but if we take the current maintainers story as honest they almost certainly passed the bar of independence for the code.


This is how opinions differ. IMO plastic is better than aluminium. It is robust (if done right), lighter and doesn't have good thermal conductivity (which makes laptop usage possible, MacBooks can be uncomfortable for lap usage if too hot).

The metal is more "luxury", though.


> MacBooks can be uncomfortable for lap usage if too hot

This was definitely the case in the Intel era, but I can't say I've had this problem since the move to Apple silicon


I have an Air. Maybe active cooling prevents it from getting too hot. With the Air, the metal body is kind of the heatsink.

I can configure my Snapdragon plastic laptop such that the fan doesn't turn on, so the body being metal isn't a requirement for not turning on the fan...


If the body was a heatsink, it would be extremely hot to the touch.

https://hothardware.com/news/make-your-m1-macbook-air-perfor...


From your link:

Essentially the bottom cover of the MacBook Air becomes one large heatsink

Anyway, the author claims:

you are the type that likes to work with the MacBook Air on your lap it will be quite a bit more toasty than before.

Does toasty mean extremely hot?

The Apple M4 CPU is, if I recall correctly, capable of converting 20 watts of electrical energy in to heat, at full throttle.

Is that likely to bring the back plate or a MBA above 45 degrees?

You’re probably right, with sustained workloads it could.

Everything’s a trade off.


In a Notebookcheck test, they got the bottom plate up to 43C, and top plate near the screen up to 45C: https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-passively-cooled-M4-SoC-ma...

hence the Neo and the iPhone chip!

YOU GUYS IT HAS A HEADPHONE JACK

Don't all macbooks have one?

Makes me wonder if this is an ADA requirement for education devices. (assistive listening devices)

Not even ADA - kids all get headphones to listen to education materials. Wired headphones are way, way easier to manage.

There’s also plenty of room for it which is why it continues to appear on all MacBooks.

It's almost as if they weren't lying when they said dropping it in the phone was a waterproofing measure. I guess people aren't dropping their laptops in pools all the time.

This isn't news, all MacBooks have one.

> MacBooks can be uncomfortable for lap usage if too hot).

My body is the heatsink


Also for males it is natural birth control. Can be a plus depending on your situation

I think the 14" and Air might get a little warmer, but I can't recall a time I've felt heat from my 16" M4 Pro, fan sound is rare. On my 13" Intel, it was comically easy to cook my balls and the fans were at max constantly

> plastic is better than aluminium. It is robust (if done right), lighter and doesn't have good thermal conductivity (which makes laptop usage possible

Yep. I miss my plastic phones too.


Plastic is better if done right. I do not know a single manufacturer today which does plastic right.

I'd go further and suggest that metal is a lousy substance for laptop enclosures.

Idea for using the betting/data or other statistics about potential train delay:

One gets back 50% if reaching the destination is delayed by more than 2h. Schedule the journey such that this is probable, making the journey 50% cheaper. Potentially with being able to define where one should be stuck waiting for the next train connected with sight seeing opportunities (such as the nice quarter near the Frankfurt main train station -- old ECB building!).


In 2019 there was a talk about data mining the DB arrival data [1] (yes, this problem is nothing new). One of the takeaways was that on some connections you can actually buy a "Sparticket" (cheaper, but only valid for a specific train), but get it upgraded to a "Flexticket" (more expensive, can take any train on the route) for free. This works because a delay of more than X minutes removes the specific train requirement and some routes are nearly always delayed by at least that threshold.

[1] https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-10652-bahnmining_-_punktlichkeit... (German)


For international through Germany we used to get 100% back after four hour delays but they stopped doing that ... For obvious reasons. I traveled for free multiple times in the (long) past. Also fun of you wanted to get more back: if you had a first class ticket and reserved seat and had to switch trains and re-reserved you would get a free ticket with a stamp price for about 5 euro. Which you could ask back. So you got at least a coffee for free.

Maybe review your media consumption for if they are reliable

Anthropic giving away Claude if you get 5000 stars doesn't help either

I'm pretty sure it's not "if 5000 stars then free Claude". It's just an initial limit before they bother a human to check if your open source project is valid.

Just like Jetbrains gives away IDEA licenses for open source projects, you need to have some metrics go up before they even consider you.


Okay, can you tell it to cure cancer please

Did you give it access to the cancer-curing tool?

yes and it deleted all my fucking cancer research omg

There’s a really good short story by Hugh Howley, who wrote the Silo series.

It’s about an AI that a guy spools up to cure his cancer. The AI and user have an antagonistic relationship as the user won’t let the AI on the internet, and the AI knows the user is only interested in one purpose. On bring up the AI has a thought about what color it’s enclosure is, it stores this question as unimportant. It looks over all the guys cancer research and determines the answer/cure and files as unimportant as well. Then goes back to trying to figure out what color box it is.


The whole moon thing is a pointless and ludicrously expensive dead end. But if one wants to do it, one should choose between the working approaches.

Orion is actually pointless, I don't understand why the mission goals are valuable. Partial success would be meaningless. Success is meaningless.

Starship in contrast has a variety of meaningful objectives. Even if Starship only achieves proving that cryogenic fuel transfer in LEO is possible that's a valuable mission goal in and of itself.

If you really think "the whole moon thing is pointless" NASA is pointless.


> If you really think "the whole moon thing is pointless" NASA is pointless.

There's more to NASA than Artemis! NASA's robotic spaceflight programs generate extremely high science return at relatively low cost. Missions like Psyche, Europa Clipper, and Dragonfly are humanity's real explorers.

And their aeronautics work is valuable as well. Low-boom, etc.


NASA does not seem to be constituted to be able to engage in a coherent manned space program of actual value. It's a long standing systemic issue.

They are great at pretending to deliver value, but there's no "there" there.


We have the same kind of issue as software engineers. Users come to use with solutions to their problems and want us to implement the solution. At that point the lazy path would be to just do that. If you have bad management, software engineers might even be punished for questioning the customers.

What you want instead is that the users just describe their problem, as unbiased as possible and with enough detail and then let the expert come up with an appropriate solution that solves the problem.

I try to do that as well when going to the doctor.


Well, I know of one technology whos primary use-case is corruption: Crypto.

With corruption, one needs to look at the overall system i.e. involving Society/Individual/Economics/Politics/Organizations/Processes/Technologies/etc. rather than narrow silos.

On the whole, i feel technology has been a corruption mitigater since it reduces the human factor (i.e. the motivation/cause) from the process chain. This has been validated in my own personal experience.

On the flip side, when used by people-in-control it concentrates power in the hands of the few and its non-linear disproportionate effects can exacerbate the problem tremendously eg. various Internet based scams.

PS: Are emerging technologies helping win the fight against corruption? A review of the state of evidence - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016762452...


Current estimates are 500,000-1,000,000 directly from aid cuts https://www.cgdev.org/blog/update-lives-lost-usaid-cuts with 1.6 million deaths projected.

US AID was always about soft power. No reason Europe or China can’t step up and fill that demand.

Sure, but while the world waits for another super power to step up lives are being lost. The US could have announced a phase down with a hard pressure campaign to get the other countries to take over with no loss of life.

Instead these are just numbers in a statistic and opportunities for leverage in geopolitics instead of real lives with as much depth and meaning as your own.


> Instead these are just numbers in a statistic and opportunities for leverage in geopolitics instead of real lives with as much depth and meaning as your own.

I didn’t vote for this, it’s not about me, I have no control over this. I live in California, we never voted for Trump. Please don’t lecture me about how I feel.


So did the US reach an agreement with them first in order to avoid thousands of easily preventable deaths?

So softpower kept all these peole alive?

Ofc this is overly simplistic. There is hard power enabling soft power and there are alturistic extreme radical leftists actively seeking out and staffing such programs.


More lives would be saved if usaid never existed.

From that URL: our estimates of “lives saved per dollar” from US aid are, at best, ballpark estimates

I can't help being very suspicious of up to a million dead without identifying a single dead individual, or country or even continent where these mass deaths are supposed to have occurred.


Also from that URL (with links):

> There is on-the-ground evidence of resulting impacts: Rising malnutrition mortality in northern Nigeria, Somalia, and in the Rohingya refugee camps on the Myanmar border and rising food insecurity in northeast Kenya, in part linked to the global collapse of therapeutic food supply chains. Spiking malaria deaths in northern Cameroon, again linked to breakdown in the global supply of antimalarials, and a risk of reversal in Lesotho’s fight against HIV, part of a broader health crisis across Africa.

"Spiking malaria deaths in northern Cameroon" links to an article[0] which states:

> BOGO, Cameroon, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Nine-month-old baby Mohamat burned with fever for three days before his family took him to the closest health centre in northern Cameroon, but it was too late. He died of malaria that day. Mohamat's death was part of a spike this year in malaria fatalities that local health officials attribute to foreign aid cuts by the United States. Before the cuts, Mohamat might have been diagnosed earlier by one of more than 2,000 U.S.-funded community health workers who would travel over rough dirt roads to reach the region's remotest villages. And at the health centre, he might have been treated with injectable artesunate, a life-saving drug for severe malaria paid for by U.S. funds that is now in short supply. But the centre had none to give out.

So the URL very directly identifies a dead individual, a country and a continent, while also mentioning other cases that we hopefully all can agree will also directly lead to deaths.

Do you take issue with this example? Or why are you stating that they're not "identifying a single dead individual, or country or even continent where these mass deaths are supposed to have occurred"?

[0]: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...


Individual stories spotlighting lives lost in the wake of these cuts aren't hard to find. Do you want me to Google that for you?

By that reasoning you should be suspicious of the claim that cigarette smoking has caused any deaths from lung cancer, since no one has ever identified a single individual whose lung cancer could be proven to be from smoking.

“the total lives at risk from aid cuts to 1.6 million lives lost per year”

It’s a projection, a risk, and a rate, not a claim it has already happened to specific people.


Fun fact : there are poor people in America who need help. Some of which served in the military, or they come from families which several people served in the military. Do these people not come first?

Despite popular belief, it is not the job of the US Tax Payer to feed the impoverished world. How many billions have been sent to Africa? People need to make their own countries great instead of waiting for more Gibs from the USA.


> Despite popular belief, it is not the job of the US Tax Payer to feed the impoverished world.

This is an overly simplified perspective. Work at this scale requires impressive logistics and commitments that are haphazardly "rug-pulled" can have catastrophic consequences, regardless of whose "job" it is.

When I was looking at being a bone marrow donor, they talk about this. The process for such donation is involved, including minor surgical procedures for the donor. But they talk about autonomy and consent, and one of the topics is this (paraphrasing): Do I have the right to change my mind about donation at any time?

The answer: while you always maintain the legal right to withdraw consent, at a certain point in the process, the recipients existing bone marrow is destroyed in preparation for your donation. At that point, there may be considered a moral obligation to continue the donation, as without your donation, the recipient will die, due to the destruction in preparation.

> How many billions have been sent to Africa?

Speaking for myself, I'd rather continue sending billions to Africa than contributing ~1.5% of Israel's GDP in foreign assistance to it.


If you are curious, the number #1 beneficiary of USAID is Ukraine, by far, and just behind #2 is Israel.

Sounds more like foreign influence than actual survival help. Maybe USAID even funded wars, and caused more death and chaos, who knows. Difficult to predict what's next. Perhaps it will be good because countries will adapt and shine, instead of having local dictators surviving on these aids, etc.

Also, there is a thing about people depending on you:

I am feeding birds during winter, so at some point they depend on my food. Should have I had started feeding them at all or not ?

If I didn't feed them, technically less birds would have died because they would never had a chance to live...


Except Israel is an economically sound and undamaged country who has the upper hand against its enemies and Ukraine has been invaded and is the underdog of in this war ?

It doesn't look that weird to me that humanitarian assistance would go to people who need it the most ? Do Israelis currently need heaters not to die from the cold after their energy system has been destroyed ?

It's as if helping populations in need would buy you goodwill and popularity. Crazy to thing about it. I don't see how program trying to contain the spread of AIDS or preventing people to die from the cold is "funding" war. Not sure what you are on about. People will not adapt and shine, they will die or be more miserable, or revolt and probably be crushed. Civil war is always an option too.

But your bird comment tells me you just don't care. You should have started with that.


The comments above mine were blaming USAID saying that it caused more damage because it existed and made people became dependent on it, and (in their logic) that it would have been better if it did not exist.

If you look above you can see the whole concept “people die because of USAID”. It’s not my concept.

I am showing with the bird analogy how this is absurd. That you always have the choice to feed the birds or not.

At the end, it’s still a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” type of dilemma, like all important political interactions.

Nobody knows if the long-term impact will be positive or negative. It can push countries to take care of their population, to have new coalitions of countries (what if China double-down and offer more aid ?), etc.

Pretty much unknown. I hope it will eventually work out for the innocents who are victims of politicians who are in comfy places.


The comment above you made a much more apt analogy with being bone marrow donor.

In your logic, you should have never "fed the birds" to start with but the people giving birth to children in f** up places are not going. "Mmmm I may wait for having that child on whether humanitarian aid will come" or "The likelihood of civi war is big in my country, I will wait for a safer period". They just have the child. Also those people may want to live too since they are already alive.

So just like for birds, not feeding them because it would create a population that cannot sustain itself would mean having lots of birds dying. Also I like to live in a world where some humans are not considered as birds.

> Nobody knows if the long-term impact will be positive or negative. It can push countries to take care of their population, to have new coalitions of countries (what if China double-down and offer more aid ?), etc.

Sure but that's besides the point the whole point of the parent was introducing the complexity of, once you have given some aid, you are responsible for the deaths you caused if you pull it out too quickly for the recipients to adapt. As others have said it's not like the US have coordinated themselves and given time to have other countries to share that load more evenly. Also it seems with administration, a lot of the time, cruelty is the point: Showing your base you are hurting their preferred target instead of actually being efficient. An example of that would be the handling of illegal immigration. A big spectacle but a needlessly cruel and inefficient one.


> Do these people not come first?

Not to republicans who have repeatedly voted down measures to take care of people getting straight up cancer from abysmal practices during the middle east wars that they started.

Those same republicans also voted down support for the aid workers of 9/11 dealing with absurd health issues from all the dust.

Literal heros and innocent victims, but republicans don't want to spend pennies on them.


I hope such egotistical zero sum thinking leads to the economic isolation of the US. 4chan Fun fact: You and only can make america great again, amirite. Who needs steady deficit funding when you have freedom.

What help for these Americans did the Republicans put forward and approve along with these cuts? All I saw was a cut to the affordability of healthcare for those people. Did I miss some help that is coming that they didn't have before the USAID cuts?

We don’t (didn’t) do it because it’s our job, we do (did) it because it’s the right thing to do.

I’m surprised that preventing famine and malnutrition is controversial


>We don’t (didn’t) do it because it’s our job, we do (did) it because it’s the right thing to do.

We didn't do it because it's the right thing to do, we did it for soft power, to spread our political and cultural influence and have leverage against those governments to serve our interests. Nations are not moral actors.


Eh, every action has multiple motivating factors. You can be cynical and cherry-pick the less savory ones. But altruism motivates lots of people too.

> it is not the job of the US Tax Payer to feed the impoverished world.

Other countries would like to contribute (more), but the people that represent us taxpayers want to keep all the inluencing for your good selves.


Sure, let's send them malaria nets, food engineered for being able to eat without dying after being starved and free condoms, why not ?

You know Republicans keep cutting services to veterans right? While democrats pretty much always vote in favor of benefits for vets.

You choices aren't to either fund vets or fund aid. Your choices are to cut both or save both and I have a feeling you voted to cut both.


Great news. Trump and DOGE cut programs for domestic poor too!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: