If somebody talking about their disability triggers you into such a strong political reaction, then maybe consider the possibility that you have let your own identity politics take too much control over your life.
> Also i have a distaste of the author listing their "disabilities" in their twitter bio.
People generally prefer disabled people not to talk about their disabilities or be public about them. But this sort of openness is incredibly useful. It's the internet and it's almost 2021. Let people talk about what they want to without being the internet police.
The license wasn't changed. But yes, generally you can make changes to MIT code that aren't released under the MIT license.
> It's definitely the case that at a given snapshot of the repository which has copyrighted code owned by someone else the copyright notice has to be there at that same revision.
This isn't in the license. Where is this laid out?
I'm just curious, is Microsoft actually in violation of the MIT license here?
All future changes to this repo are copyright Microsoft, so Microsoft's copyright should be in the statement.
Arguably there should be an additional statement indicating that LesnyRumcajs holds copyright to bits of code that Microsoft hasn't changed.
But
(1) exactly which bits have LesnyRumcajs's copyright would have to be verified by examining source control history. Since LesnyRumcajs's copyright statement is visible on any commit where LesnyRumcajs holds copyright, this setup makes actually makes it easy to verify which portions LesnyRumcajs has copyright claims on.
(2) Including LesnyRumcajs's copyright statement in repo history seems to be all that the MIT license requires. The license doesn't forbid there being another more easily accessible copyright notice that doesn't list all copyright holders. It only requires that LesnyRumcajs's statement be included in all copies of the software, which it currently is.
Yes of course it's in dispute. It's so dominant a dispute in intelligence research that it's hard to imagine anyone being familiar with research on IQ and not knowing that it's in dispute.
IQ tests are maybe ok at doing population-level correlations, but not at predicting the success of any given individual. Tons of things are correlated with intelligence, and IQ has the virtue that it's easy to measure. So it has uses for things like research studies.
But as an actual filter when you care about performance it's not great. Things like high school GPA are easier to measure and more predictive of college success.
It's not sufficient that a metric be objective. The student's astrological sign is objective. But it's not a useful measure of college readiness.
Standardized test scores do very little to predict college success when controlling for other variables. And they're trivial to game.
They're a relic of back when people believed in IQ tests were useful selection criteria. Maybe there will be standardized tests in the future that are more useful, but we don't have those yet.
It's usually not obvious where to put the seams ahead of time so you can cut them when you need to split into microservices.
Plus keeping the API boundaries clean costs time and resources, and it's tempting to violate them just to launch this one feature. This extra discipline doesn't have any payoff in the short term, and it has unknown payoff in the long term because you're not sure you drew the boundaries ahead of time anyway.
So I think in practice what happens is you create a monolith and just eat the cost of untangling it when the team gets too big or whatever.
Go doesn't particularly value readability or usability. For example, the short variable name convention makes it harder to read code you're unfamiliar with, and there are a number of noticeable usability shortcomings, some of which are mentioned in the article.
I think Go's design goals were really to (1) reduce compilation time, which explains why Go has human programmers do work that compilers do in other languages, (2) be statically typed and compiled, so you can use it conveniently for microservices, and (3) have syntax somewhat similar to Python.
I think of Go as the successor to Java. Go is to Python as Java was to C++. That, plus the integration with many libraries is why it's taken off in some niches.
The US has a long history of letting murderers off the hook when there is a racial component[0]. With someone like Rittenhouse, who has become a darling of the white supremacy movement, the trial is part of an ongoing culture war. And culture warriors are going to do what they always do.
[0] See, for example, the use of jury nullification after the US Civil War.
You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head. Otherwise all bar fights would end in gun violence like in a cheesy Western film.
> If people are willing to pay money for a service, that service is by definition valuable.
This is only true if you define "value" to mean "people are willing to pay money for it."
But that's a useless and circular definition. It's only tolerated because assuming that money is a proxy for value was useful for making crude models in economics.
From the context, I think they were talking about discovery, not whether the books are available for purchase on Amazon.
Personally I don't think I've ever become aware of an interesting book via Amazon, but I've also never used it for discovery. Certainly you have to troll through a lot of nonsense results even when you have a good idea of what you're looking for.
> Essentially the government has built a surveillance state by outsourcing it to private enterprise.
Well, yes, that's essentially the whole point of silicon valley. The government and military fund the creation of startups that have tactical value. Those businesses become self-funding and improve the US economy, which also has military value since a robust economy is harder to attack. This has been explored in a few places, e.g. [0], [1].
But it's not like any of this was secret. The off-loading of government operations to private industry, combined with the lobbying for reduced regulations on private industry effectively gives the government carte blanche with the added bonus of plausible deniability.
Whether or not these trends are good has been debated for half a century in the US.
I'm curious to hear what you think Wikipedia's political stance is?