Agree - there's nothing that stops you from asking for more. Even if you don't get it now, it sends a signal that you will expect more $ later.
But, if you are really satisfied with $30ph (if you don't have a better offer to fall back on), you probably won't get (much) more. Your weak negotiating position will inevitably shine through.
I find it important to identify that yes, a license is required to use someone else’s code - I mean this legally, not morally: you can be sued.
The sibling points about trademark law (which is different) and remix culture (which has some legal protection but not that I’m aware for lines of code) seem to miss this point.
This is a licensed use, it turns out, which is great. If the author here had not identified that before publishing, then they were putting themselves at legal risk.
[on a technicality, the MIT license hasn’t been properly invoked, since the MIT license requires the text of the license to be included in full, but the original author’s consent for use seems now to be clear]
> the complexity of a problem like this, algorithmically, legally and ethically.
I disagree with the framing of this as "complexity" when it's really "Facebook's profits would be reduced/Facebook's business model would be compromised".
The complexity comes from Facebook's goal of maximising profits within the permitted algorithmic and legal space.
My belief is simply that there is no such evidence.
Reasonably convincing evidence, to me, would be:
- genetic precursor virus particles which have died and no longer exist - they are extinct, or,
- dated blood samples with immunological evidence of infection, sufficient that it isn’t just tampered/false positives. There’s no reason to expect this would have been collected.
i.e. if you haven’t collected it by 2019, there is never going to be any evidence.
This also answers your sibling commenter: it’s not in China’s interest to publicise any such search, when the odds of discovering anything (even if there were earlier infections) are vanishingly low.
Given that coronavirus would not be observable until there is a cluster of symptomatic cases in a city (and a doctor with relevant experience who can observe multiple cases - here 李文亮), I find it highly unlikely that we could observe earlier cases, if they spread less rapidly or outside a city - or even within another city with less institutional knowledge.
> b) China would be highly incentivized to root out
Even if so, this doesn't form part of any prior. China being incentivized to act in that situation, doesn't affect how likely or unlikely that situation was.
The article here also appears to significantly contradict itself.
The headline says "Food Got Wasted — Mostly at Home" but the article seems to say that this applies to "food available to consumers", i.e. it is only really measuring the quantity of waste as household vs catering/restaurants.
Since more food must surely be eaten at home than elsewhere, it's not surprising that food waste is produced at home is first out of two options.
The article later admits that a higher quantity of food is 'wasted' before it reaches stores.
The UK has already allowed open immigration from Hong Kong, specifically in response to the Chinese National Security Law, but I'm not sure that this is really any solution.
But, if you are really satisfied with $30ph (if you don't have a better offer to fall back on), you probably won't get (much) more. Your weak negotiating position will inevitably shine through.