mike10921

Back in the day, Open Source projects thrived on the enthusiasm of creators who didn't view software development as a means to make money. Instead, they saw it as an opportunity to build a community and create superior products through collaboration.

However, the landscape has shifted. When an Open Source project becomes successful today, creators often transition the original product into a proprietary version with added features and support, available only through paid access. This practice undermines the original Open Source project, and usually end off killing the original project.

The reason is that labs can decipher the drug contents and produce the drugs at a fraction of the cost. Of course, these companies never paid for the research and cost to bring to market. So yes US citizens end up carrying the cost, but in practicality, a very big number of life-saving drugs originate in US companies. I am definitely not defending these companies just pointing out the basics.

I'm the last to defend the drug companies, but at a basic level, they get the right to sell at high prices because of the cost to bring to market which is absolutely enormous. Once it goes to market the cost of producing the drug is often very low compared to the price but it's in order to encourage companies to invest in future drugs.

On the flip side, I find that GPT4 is constantly getting degraded. It intentionally only returns partial answers even when I direct it specifically not to do so. My guess is, that they are trying to save on CPU consumption by generating shorter responses.

They cant get away with "oh shiz we screwed up", this is the essential part of their business. If you're unable to perform the fundamental service you are offering, it's indefensible. Okta having a security breach is like a pizza shop owner who's unable to make a pizza.

This is similar to discussing the off-road capabilities of a Range Rover. The extent of off-roading for most Range Rovers is typically just driving onto a front lawn. Most cybertruck owners will likely show little to no concern about its towing capacity.

Who could forget trying to download a game that was two Gigs, and it would give an estimate of a week :)

The usual movie: Google pushes its monopoly with shenanigans, they get sued, and if they lose they pay a random fine that is a drop in the ocean. Nothing changes and shenanigans continue.

I'm no fan of either company but the general concept is that Meta specializes in software not fashion, so partnering with Rayban will allow people to feel fashionable while using Meta's device (and of course allowing meta to follow their every move).

Short version via ChatGPT (for the lazy but curious like myself):

Between 1994 and 1998, AOL (America Online) emerged as a significant player in the digital landscape. Initially established in 1985 as Quantum Computer Services with a product that connected Commodore 64 computers to an online network, it expanded and rebranded under Steve Case's leadership. Case envisioned a simple, user-friendly online platform, and AOL's chat feature became its most notable offering. While AOL was initially a closed system, unlike the open protocols of the wider Internet, its aggressive marketing campaigns successfully lured millions of Americans into its ecosystem. Ted Leonsis, who joined AOL after the acquisition of his company Redgate Communications, envisioned AOL as an all-encompassing digital entertainment hub. However, as the broader Internet gained traction, AOL felt compelled to integrate certain Internet protocols, eventually even providing its users with browsers to access the larger World Wide Web. By 1997, AOL was the gateway to the Internet for nearly half its users. Yet, its aspiration to be a distinct multi-generational platform faded as it became synonymous with the broader web. This evolution culminated in AOL's acquisition of Netscape in 1998, signaling its full immersion into the wider world of the Internet.

Yes, the commute removal definitely added a new perspective to many people who have been working in offices for many years. I ended up renting a small office near my house because working and being in the same place without any change felt dismal.

As a long-time software engineer and related positions. When covid started it felt as if the world said "We worked enough we need a collective time off"

It is not bad if one has self-control and eats a small amount of it, but that is really the case for most bad substances like alcohol, weed, etc.

If one is out of control eating sugar it is clearly going to have bad consequences. The immediate consequences will be obesity and bad teeth. The long-term would be diabetes, and there are definitely others as well.

Nicotine itself is not more harmful than coffee or similar products. It is the smoking that is the main health risk. Assuming that vaping is less harmful, that would make it a win if one was to choose between smoking and vaping. Of course, doing neither is the absolute best choice.

I fully agree. The main argument is that if you use sweeteners you will eat more sugar, so it is worse than sugar. So basically don't eat the non-poison because it will cause you to eat poison, so instead eat the poison itself.

Also, there is no concrete evidence that sweeteners are bad for one's health, it's more the feeling of 'chemicals' are always bad. Sugar is clearly bad and causes obesity and diabetes. The choice seems pretty clear between the two.