Qwuke

Hey Steve, I read your recent blogpost on the ERSC site - have you or David (or anyone else at ERSC) felt like there's a Rusty-enough topic around what your startup is doing to give a talk at Rust NYC/Rust conference soon?

There's not really a VCS meetup in NYC, but I got to hear David and others at Rust NYC wax eloquent about Sapling vs Piper and Buck vs Bazel a couple of times, so I think the audience is there!

I've used Photopea for small editing before, and even though it's not my daily driver, it's a really cool project.

Is there anything I can read about the fixes to make it more stable? Or just a place to check out recent developments?

It's the first book I read about computer history and made me interested in tech, a career I love doing every day :) this talk made me very happy.

I loaded credits into Tinfoil the other day and have had zero issues, thanks to smart folks around here and the security space recommending it.

It's now my open weight inference provider of choice, since on top of the privacy/security characteristics it's also reasonably cheap.

I think so. Maybe dang or tomhow could switch the link :)

The social rules work so well that I wish tech cos would just adopt these as baseline. They make interacting with other technical folks much more enjoyable.

This is the original article text. It just looks like users skimmed and then flamed the author.

@dang, I'm not sure what's changed with the Show HN lately, but it's been much more lovely to read. Thank you for whatever changes which were made.

>It's not even clear if AI was used to find the bug

It's not even clear you read the article

Between this and DINOv3, Meta is doing a lot for the SOTA even if Llama 4 came up short compared to the Chinese models.

It's interesting to me to see how easily you can reach a much safer C without adding _everything_ from C++ as a toy project. I really enjoyed the read!

Though yes, you should probably just write C-like C++ at that point, and the result sum types used made me chuckle in that regard because they were added with C++17. This person REALLY wants modern CPP features..

I've seen Optuna used with some of the prompt optimization frameworks lately, where it's a really great fit and has yielded much better results than the "hyperparameter" tuning I had attempted myself. I can't stop mentioning how awesome a piece of software it is.

Also, I'm eager to see how well gpt-oss-120b gets uncensored if it really was using the phi-5 approach, since that seems fundamentally difficult given the training.

>1. It's important for people to understand how OSI co-opted the goodwill and some of the ideas from the Free Software movement.

Okay I don't understand why this is happening in the same breath you're suggesting that OSI is responsible for making everyone in the free software movement believe freedom of use (even in commercial cases) is required otherwise things are source available. GNU foundation, OSI, and even source available license writers basically agree on this part. Can you be specific here?

Because otherwise you're just reinforcing the perception I explained above, since largely the disagreement between OSI and the original free software people is that OSI supports too _permissive_ and too many non-copyleft licenses, not that the permissive or copyleft licenses need to enshrine certain license holders or disenfranchise others, or block commercialization or competitors. That's deeply antithetical to the idea of free or open software, regardless of the camp.

>2. I think they have some good ideas even if I don't agree with all of them.

AGPL, despite achieving all of your goals to prevent hyperscalers from free riding, is not one of them?

>I'm just a guy with 3 kids under 5 and not enough time to run any kind of rebranding project. I'm just angry that whenever someone launches a project that is more free than proprietary software but that isn't OSI approved, 90% of the comments are about why it isn't free or isn't open source.

Because the community has largely agreed on the principles codified by OSI. The principles you propose seem to betray the larger movement's intentions significantly, which is much bigger in scope than OSI.

>-1: You can't distribute this software if your name ends in "ezos".

>0-4 same as the rest.

That's a lot different than source available licenses actually, which usually declares enshrines the original license holder, even though it's not technically free under the other principles. I think if you thought up of a new consistent principle that didn't enshrine a single distributor or disenfranchise entire classes of other distributors, people would be open to the idea of a variant of free software.

But I think the bigger issue is that you think AGPL is failing somehow in not being restrictive enough compared to source available licenses. Maybe you could articulate that more clearly, and _that_ would gather more mind share. Merely stating that OSI is bad doesn't really change people's opinion of source available. Mostly reinforcing free software/copyleft maxi's ideas and insinuating GPL needs to be more common.