The problem I have is that there's no way to embed an "uncertainty" into EXIF metadata in a standard way. I just want some photos to be "Summer 1987" or "February 1976" or even "1981-1983"... but I _have_ to invent some complete timestamp down to the second and then just rely upon captions or comments.
But I generally know the dates far better than any AI could guess (based on ages of the individuals I know).
And then they submit them to a CNA and get a CVE assigned, and then _everyone_ needs to deal with the not-actually-a-vulnerability report, especially when the not-actually-triggerable-DOS gets assigned a "Critical" CVSS score from EUVD or NVD.
I loved synergy back in 2005 when it was _actually_ open source! It was probably my first open source contribution! But then it was enshittified and made impossible to build from source in order to support the commercial dreams.
Well the comments tend to be superfluous "whats" (describing the code itself) instead of the more helpful "whys." And they're almost never the most useful "why nots".
I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that your "ton of random stories constantly being published about Native Americans apparently being secret geniuses with magical powers" are _themselves_ evidence of exactly the sort of unserious reporting that the researcher (NOT NBC) claims; they sideline and obscure the realities of the intellectual aspects.
This is such a classic example of online discourse in general. There are two options, and folks tribally cling to one or the other without realizing that both are legitimate and well-suited for different situations.
Yes, of course distances are measured starting from 0. But we count discrete things starting at 1. You can do mental gymnastics to enumerate from zero and many programmers are (unfortunately IMO) taught to do so. It's a hard thing to learn that way, so for the folks that have done so, it often becomes a point of pride and a shibboleth.
As a classic example, a four story building has four floors. But you only need to go up three flights to get to the top. You can legitimately call the top floor either 3 or 4, and folks are similarly tribal about their own cultural norms around this one, too.
Right, the correct way here is to simply grant _everyone_ a license to _everything_ under the terms of the AGPL (or whatever). You can then separately license portions under other terms.
You don't need to note the commercial licensing option in the license itself; it's irrelevant to that grant. You just state that elsewhere.
That's quite the interesting perspective, but I'd say it gives "them" more organization and unified focus than is real. It's an open source language and ecosystem. Folks use it — and gripe about it and contribute to it and improve it — if they like it and find it valuable.
All I can say is that many of "us" live in that tension between high level and low level every day. It's actually going to become more pronounced with `--trim` and the efforts on static compilation in the near term. The fact that Julia can span both is why I'm a part of it.