No, it should be illegal, otherwise everything would get destroyed whenever someone is slightly destroyed. Illegality serves as a kind of filter so that when enough people risk jail or death for a cause, that's because they really had enough.
I haven't given that a lot of thought, and it feels weird to say, but maybe the opinion that an act should be done and should be illegal can be true at the same time.
When a citizen commits a crime, they messed up. When ten commit a crime, they messed up. When half the village destroys the chief's home, the chief messed up.
You're being downvoted but you're right. I won't defend Thiel in general but that particular point is a bit taken out of context.
There's a talk somewhere ont the internet where he explains that you don't want to build a do-it-all product, at least not right away. Don't compete with everyone for everything. Find a more niche market where you can have a monopoly, get comfortable, then you branch out, diversity, and tackle broader markets.
If you don't want to pay, you'd have to not use GitHub Actions at all, maybe by using their API to test new commits and PRs and mark them as failed or passed.
Why the AI disclosure? Is it just for the author to make sure the readers know they are AI-skeptic and use the opportunity to link to another article, or would there be something wrong with the proof had AI been used to help write the code?
(By help I mean just help, not write an entire sloppy article.)
The way I understand it, the closer the better for the reasons stated, but that's just a factor and there are others that might make you not want to stay too close for certain logic.
Open source does not mean accepting everyone's work or even accepting contributions at all. From the article, it seemed like this was the major concern.
I found the part that said "yes open source provides transparency but we have a roadmap" a bit weird.
It's their product, so if they don't want to open source it then they shouldn't. No need to write a silly article with almost as many emojis as words.
I feel the same. I think it's mostly "impatience" or the fear of losing time. We get older and busier and the "price" we pay to spend hours on a book gets more and more expensive.
Learning is an investment, and as my salary increases and life gets more comfortable, my brain doesn't feel the urge to learn and prefers leisure.
I'm looking for ways to "hack" my brain and get back into the habit of learning in my free time and wanting to figure things out. When I have kids I hope they will be curious and I'll learn with them.
> I learned more things from entertainment than any textbook or classroom ever taught me.
This statement is abstract enough that it can be both true and false depending on what one means when saying that. Can you be more specific? Have you watched movies and listening to music that gave you the skills to have the job or career you have? Did YouTube videos give you the knowledge to work in a scientific lab or start your own company?
Do you have any example?
There's a lot of educational content out there that's probably better to consume than dumb silly content, but skills and deep knowledge can only be acquired with practice, distraction-free studying, and similar activities.
> The pre-sale estimate £800-1200 ($1073-1610). It sold for £7,000 ($9390).