> Anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot imo
I don’t think that’s true. Avoiding this mistake requires knowing that an ultrasound may not detect calcification. For a patient reading their own report, I don’t think that’s intuitive. I would expect most people to read “no calcifications” and assume that their joint has no calcifications.
For my business (micro-SaaS EdTech), the value of building trust with my customers cannot be understated. Further, I don’t believe i can effectively build trust with my customers in the way the author describes; without meetings.
It takes a bit of digging to find the definition of the index they’re using.
From their GitHub page: “The data in this repository are the percentage change in seasonally-adjusted job postings since February 1, 2020, using a seven-day trailing average.”
Nearly all the first comments express that the justification to include Rubocop with a default rule set in Rails 8 contradicts DHH's criticism of languages such as Go which have a built-in linter, therefore dictating style rules to programmers. DHH criticizes Go's approach as totalitarian while shipping Rubocop with Basecamp's rule set.
Rubocop is a linter (etc) whose rule set can be easily customized and to include it in Rails wouldn't be possible without _some_ default set of rules. DHH addresses this apparent contradiction directly, too: "Not such that I, or anyone, can mandate what style your codebase ought to be written in, but such that you can find and enforce your own." I'm reading: A linter/formatter will be included in Rails 8 with a smart default rule set, and it can be easily customized. I don't see any contradiction.
I'm highly aligned with this decision as it could help alleviate a recurring pain point at our tiny company: managing code formatters and linters in our IDE (Solargraph, Rubocop, Ruby LSP, etc). Further, I'd expect excellent documentation on how we can customize the rules to best suit our purposes, too.
I think you're referring to Canada's Online News Act, which would require companies to pay news outlets for the content they share or repurpose. I'm a Canadian familiar with this story, and Google's opposition to it.
It surprise me if Google would limit Bard in Canada because of the Online News Act. Wouldn't the importance of driving adoption of Bard be much larger than the impact of having to remove Canadian news?
Does anyone know what's permitted commercially by the license? I saw the part indicating that if your user count is "greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Meta."
Does that imply it can be used commercially other wise? This is different than Llama's license, I believe, where they permitted only research use.
I don’t think that’s true. Avoiding this mistake requires knowing that an ultrasound may not detect calcification. For a patient reading their own report, I don’t think that’s intuitive. I would expect most people to read “no calcifications” and assume that their joint has no calcifications.