> Government support won't work for OSS at scale — it's too globally decentralized...
We recently received US 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charity status.
If this is successful in the first iteration, I'd love to see a UK and EU based charities too. That would allow european donors to support on a gross pay basis, and may simplify grants to european nationals too. (I'm sure similar things apply in other jurisdictions too.)
I'm not going to comment on the security implications of either situation, but is there a companion piece by the facilities team complaining about the amount of paperwork required to install turnstiles only for a software engineer to come along and lock them out of Jira on a whim?
Thanks, that's really interesting. Do they correct for spelling mistakes or internationalised spellings? For example, does `colour` and `color` end up in the same token stream?
I'm probably one of the least educated software engineers on LLMs, so apologies if this is a very naive question. Has anyone done any research into just using words as the tokens rather than (if I understand it correctly) 2-3 characters? I understand there would be limitations with this approach, but maybe the models would be smaller overall?
My point was more about the original comment is fine from the perspective of an American, but for the rest of the world, it doesn’t really matter if it is USD or rubles - it’s still a foreign transaction. I appreciate that for a large percentage of the world, consumers can probably do an approximation of the USD conversion in their head, and not a rubles one, and therefore, USD may be more friendly. That being said, the sales page has already got the approximation in USD anyway, which would be enough for me.
The developers of git will continue to be motivated to contribute to it. (This isn’t specific to Rust, but rather the technical choices of OSS probably aren’t generally putting the user at the top of the priority list.)
This is the problem though, right? It’s not one league table of environmental goodness - there are tradeoffs that as an educated consumer are impose to navigate.
I think banning plastic completely in packaging is a much harder ask, as whether it is needed is rather nuanced (if I understand it correctly). For example, it's perfectly possible to deliver cucumbers to an end customer without them being shrinkwrapped. However, to deliver enough cucumbers to enough customers for a supermarket scale, I understand from several documentaries that plastic is still required in that case. (For those outside the UK, plastic covered cucumber is the social barometer for plastic packaging.) Banning plastic bags was easy and simple, and our laws don't tend to deal with nuance very well...
The UK banned single use plastic bags at major supermarkets. We all moaned about it for a few minutes, forgot our reusable bags a couple of times and then got on with it. Even the small plastic bags you put fruit or pastries in are now gone in a few super markets - initially, they replaced them with transparent paper-based windowed bags, but then I think people realised you really don't need to see inside the bag, and brown paper bags are back.
This is a really unhelpful attitude. There are periods of life where buying doesn't make sense and it's financially impossible - landlords provide people with a home at these times. I'm not saying there aren't bad landlords - there are - but being a landlord isn't inherently bad; they are providing an essential service for society.