I've never thought of open source as something you can make money on directly. It's hard to see how it benefits an IC economically, besides getting some recognition and a sense of pride.
Open source has always felt explicitly like a benefit for companies.
- They get free code, buy vs build is irrelevant when you can just pip install.
- Systems become largely homogenized, thus contributors are replaceable.
- They get an established pool of workers who know the technology already, no training required.
- They get free labor from contributors outside their organization maintaining their dependencies for them in perpetuity.
It's a great deal for employers! Especially if they forbid their employees from contributing back! If you work out the game theory, there's literally no reason for a company to do anything but sit back and siphon the benefits for themselves.
This doesn't really change with LLMs, it just makes the end game much more explicit. The goal was always to capture the intellectual output of open source contributors for private profit. Always. Now that it's actually happening, who's really shocked?
To add: This is okay in early organizations. In larger organizations, the risk of malicious code entering your systems is much greater. So I think FOSS benefits small companies more than large companies, which seems good.
This. Mammals are (generally) K-selected species, meaning they invest heavily in raising their young. In the absence of natural pressures, mammals reproduce like crazy until they bump up against the environment's carrying capacity. Humans are not unique at all in our tendency to expand! It's just that we have opposable thumbs and language and tools to help us boost the carrying capacity.
Even with git-prime reducing the address space by a few orders of magnitude, there's still (effectively) zero chance for collision. The difference between 10^-29 and 10^-27 isn't that great in practice.
That's the point. For me, with very few exceptions, modern web UI is steaming pile of dogshit - no consideration for user's attention, speed, or usability. TUI are extremely low fidelity; there's nowhere to hide all that enshitified cruft! Stripping the functionality down to its bare essence vs navigating a bespoke web UI with the design aesthetic of clown vomit. I can tell you which one is more productive for me.
I'm not sure how you square that with findings that show any increase in UV exposure is associated with all-cause mortality[1]. It would seem that in this case common sense is bad sense.
This is exactly what I mean. You cite a single 12-yr old study and extrapolate its conclusion to extremes.
No mention of the Swedish cohort study (Lindqvist 2016) showing sun-avoiders had 2x mortality risk over 20 years. No mention of the dozens of ecological studies showing inverse relationships between UV and many cancers.
I could go on all day. You can't just paste one link and call it settled science.
For your consideration a 2025 meta-analysis[1] of 73 eligible articles concludes no change to current avoidance recommendations.
You'll notice that Lindqvist 2014, 2016, and 2020 are references 77, 78, and 79 respectively. Definitely interested in what evidence would change your mind. Any chance you could describe your evidentiary bar?
The meta analysis is inconclusive. I would not use that as evidence to back up the idea that you should avoid any UV exposure. I’d describe this as a complicated situation where reasonable people could disagree.
“””
What did we find?: Our findings are mixed. Exposure to sunlight has been reported both to increase and to decrease your risk of dying. Alongside its harmful effect on skin cancer, sunlight may help prevent other types of cancer. However, there were issues with the amount of data available, as well as the quality of some of the data that was available, so we can’t be certain about the findings. Currently, there is not strong enough evidence to alter sun exposure advice and so people should continue to follow the guidance.
“””
I’m not the original poster but one thing I look at is recommendations from bodies in other countries that have more experience with the issue. During COVID I found countries that had experience with SARS had better guidance than the US.
Similarly Australia has more than 2x higher skin cancer risk. The American Academy of Dermatology recommends even people with dark skin wear sunscreen daily, even if they don’t go outside. Australia doesn’t recommend this noting the tradeoffs of having higher risk of vitamin D deficiency.
Don't think of nix-darwin as an alternative to homebrew. Por que no los dos? You can run homebrew (declaratively!) via nix-darwin, and I think they complement each other quite well.
I stick to nixpkgs for most of the foundational system tools, lsps, build tools - basically anything that works in the terminal and is fully open source. For everything else (zoom, slack, vscode, firefox, etc) I use homebrew packages. The combo gives you options and is a strict superset of what you can do with homebrew or nixpkgs alone. Best of both worlds really.
This is evidently a controversial take: if your projects are always delayed, maybe systematically track the things that slow you down and fix them?
In practice, this means instead of working around tech debt, you pay it down prior to working on it. It's faster than slogging through the same problems over and over. The key is you need to measure and focus on the ACTUAL things that slow you down. Lose a day to flakey tests? Fix the damn tests.
Eliminating the slow things is THE way to go fast - it's so obvious but very few teams actually do this. Instead they complain about all the problems and tech debt then act surprised when, lo and behold, those obstacles once again get in the way of progress. It's embarrassing to see a backlog of "these things slow down development!" tickets get systematically ignored as an explanatory factor, in favor of folk theories and politics.
For a show that takes ample time to over-explain every detail of the plot through repetition and analogy, I can't see how anyone would be confused by it. It's all there in the script a dozen times over.
I thought is was a good ending to a good show. It wasn't great, but it didn't need to be. They stuck the landing.
Open source has always felt explicitly like a benefit for companies.
- They get free code, buy vs build is irrelevant when you can just pip install.
- Systems become largely homogenized, thus contributors are replaceable.
- They get an established pool of workers who know the technology already, no training required.
- They get free labor from contributors outside their organization maintaining their dependencies for them in perpetuity.
It's a great deal for employers! Especially if they forbid their employees from contributing back! If you work out the game theory, there's literally no reason for a company to do anything but sit back and siphon the benefits for themselves.
This doesn't really change with LLMs, it just makes the end game much more explicit. The goal was always to capture the intellectual output of open source contributors for private profit. Always. Now that it's actually happening, who's really shocked?
reply