I found a few things surprising about this bug too, but this might be due to my own ignorance about how these processes work:
- I was expecting the package to either be revoked, or to have a new `6.1.64-2` version being published with the previously good known state.
Maybe it wasn't done because it was not possible (mirrors being write-only, and maybe other complications in publishing a 6.1.64-2).
- I was expecting some guidelines to be published for affected machines. I've seen questions being asked [1], but no answers to them yet (so users are not sure if it would be safe to rollback to the previous kernel version (6.1.55-1) or not).
Maybe it's because the problem is not well understood yet, or maybe there are not enough people available to answer such questions on a weekend?
If someone can provide some context about "how these things work", it would be interesting to learn more about this.
I saw the message yesterday late in the evening, I still had 8 hours before my automated updates ran and I thought the package would be revoked by then. Mistake :/
Very nice! Happy to see this evolution coming from Obsidian, it seems like a more natural way to organize concepts and ideas.
One question: It seems it could be troublesome to have to move / resize everything when adding a new card once a canvas is already quite busy. Is there something like auto-layout in the work, to handle these situations? (like to automatically re-layout cards and groups once adding a new item in between)
Done the same for over 10 years with a local "@Worklog.md" file on a light text editor (to get syntax highlighting). Can be synced with Dropbox or Obsidian too.
Recently switched to do the same on Notion, moving items in a "Worklogs" database at the end of each month (with one entry per month) to keep the Worklog size manageable. If a task gets too long I can just create a sub-page for it (or a toggle), put all the context information there, and just add a link to the TODO item.
> Don't be "pro-active" be "re-active" - is my way of putting it.
As much as I recognize this can be good advice, this comment makes me sad.
It's like "start underperforming" is the answer given to bad management problems.
Which I agree actually makes sense in a lot of companies (if pro-active efforts are not already being recognized, then it's hard to change the culture).
I also think that a lot of comments here are directed toward financial success, but many people are actually looking for meaningful ways to contribute. People for which the "re-active" approach might not be a solution.
What would be the solution for those people? How unlikely is it to actually switch to a company which recognizes employees willing to be more involved?
I loved StumbleUpon, and I find myself missing a discovery tool like that one. Reddit and other websites give me the impression of running in loop. If anyone has good discovery tools to recommend!
About libraries of models, it would be useful to have open source pre-trained models which can be augmented through github-like push requests of training data together with label sets.
It would allow to maintain versioned versions of always improving models everyone can update with a `npm update`, `git pull` or equivalent.
Question: Do you have something better to suggest? (something that could realistically get implemented)
Conventions like the one suggested here are the baseline on agreeing on common rules. It allows accountability, boundaries, and once accepted open the way to discuss possible sanctions.
I would much rather see positive steps like this one than no progress at all.
Good software rarely makes money by itself - you'll need to have a focus on validating your market, acquiring new users and finding features people would be willing to pay for.
levelsio is a great example of this. The guy is actually graduated with a Master degree in "Business Administration, Entrepreneurship & New Business Venturing" [1]. His main focus is on business development [2][3][4]. Software development is just something he needs to do in order to grow his business ideas.
Nomad List is great not only because levelsio created a nice product, but also because he successfully built a community and did great marketing to promote the "digital nomad" way of life.
So question to yourself: Why do you want to do this for? Creating a business or creating a software?
If your main motivation is to create a business, then design your software development cycle to spend plenty of time focusing on the business needs.
[4] He uses whatever technology is the quickest / most convenient for his business ideas (nomadlist started as a Google spreadsheet, then as a PHP website).
Naive question - Does anybody know how the Amazon reviews datasets available online have been generated? Is it web scraping? (on millions of reviews?!) Or partnership with academics? Or something else?
> So glad I'm evaluating other email providers and use Privoxy for ad-blocking.
I find it to be not that easy to find good alternatives.
In the long run good products require money, and money is massively flowing at advertisement currently.
That's why the big players are Google (ads), Facebook (ads), and I suspect that's why Microsoft is starting to massively collect user data (from Windows 10).
Building good competition requires money flowing at them, and people don't seem willing to pay for such products.
The only alternatives I see currently are:
- A change of rules (laws) regulating advertisement and personal data.
- A change of the funding system to give more opportunities to people to unite and bootstrap their own initiatives (basic income?).
- A subscription-based subset of Internet were you pay $10-$30 each month and can access to a high-quality service providers (news, email providers, etc).
- A major actor benevolently sponsoring such efforts (states or other wealthy entities with funding capabilities).
The goal of the test is just to give an approximation. The test is not accurate (and is not claiming to be).
The core of the theory is to highlight natural preferences in the way we use cognitive functions. It's a pretty good and useful model. It's not a definite one though, like all the models we have it's meant to be improved and replaced over the years (like in physics).
99% of the critics about MBTI are focusing on the tests (which I agree are not accurate) and the authors don't understand the theory behind it - which is the really useful part. (Carl Jung's work, cognitive functions preferences, etc)
- I was expecting the package to either be revoked, or to have a new `6.1.64-2` version being published with the previously good known state.
Maybe it wasn't done because it was not possible (mirrors being write-only, and maybe other complications in publishing a 6.1.64-2).
- I was expecting some guidelines to be published for affected machines. I've seen questions being asked [1], but no answers to them yet (so users are not sure if it would be safe to rollback to the previous kernel version (6.1.55-1) or not).
Maybe it's because the problem is not well understood yet, or maybe there are not enough people available to answer such questions on a weekend?
If someone can provide some context about "how these things work", it would be interesting to learn more about this.
[^1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057843#33