pwny

Love the look of the site!

How are you getting these printed and shipped? Do you do it yourself or consume a 3rd party service?

Good to note that self hosting Gitlab (CE in my case) is a breeze. I'm pretty bad at infra and sysadmin stuff and I've been maintaining an instance for a group of friends for about a year now with no issue.

Installation is easy, upgrading (even between major versions) is completely painless, you get integration with Gitlab Continuous Integration, the Community Edition doesn't feel artificially gimped to get you to switch to a paid plan, Gitlab is great at fixing security issues. I also love the UX and it's not missing any feature in my experience compared to GitHub/Bitbucket.

I'm not affiliated with Gitlab in any way but it's honestly one of the rare pieces of software I only have praise for.

Thanks a ton! Am I really seeing a ~2x increase?

I just want to say (since you're here and this is a post about Gitlab) that your product is awesome.

A few friends and I spun up our own instance of the CE about a week ago because we weren't too happy about Github's stance. It was incredibly easy to set up and it works flawlessly on a small 1 core, 2Gb VM.

A little off topic but can you share the effect the recent Github stuff has had for Gitlab? Did you get a lot more traffic?

> The article also doesn't mention how GPL is a show-stopper at some companies where we are building proprietary solutions. > Oracle, IBM, Sony, Apple, Microsoft, Boeing all are monetized empires that profit not just from binary blobs, but from providing a superior product. Also, being the patent holder is lucrative.

I'm really not a huge fan of the GPL but you have to realize those are by design. To a supporter of the license, that's actually a plus.

> How do you intend on running a business and feeding your employees, let alone making investors happy following the virtues of GPL? Consulting and support only goes so far.

If the GPL doesn't fit your business plan, just don't use it. Do you see Open-Source projects using leaked closed-source code (or complaining that they can't do so)? No one is preventing companies from rewriting equivalent code and the authors had the right to select whatever terms they wanted when they created their project. It's their creative output after all.

I have to disagree that it's the least interesting topic. A relationship is never a one way street and while in this situation one of the party clearly seems to be at fault, it's not always the case. Of course it never should have happened but it has and so the discussion about damage mitigation is still a valid one.

I wish I was taught any kind of disengagement skill when I was being bullied as a kid, even though it never should have happened (and since I can foresee the uproar here, I'm in no way implying the two are equivalent but merely noticing similarities).

If that's how it came across I probably really expressed myself improperly because that wasn't my point at all (English being my second language probably doesn't help and I really hesitated to post because I knew there was a chance I wasn't properly formulating my argument).

So let me clarify: I don't believe it was her fault in any way. Quite the opposite, I believe 100% that the guy is at fault here. My point was more related to the fact that we (myself included) tend to maintain relationships that are clearly unhealthy in hindsight. I probably should have chosen a better word than responsibility seeing as it was more a comment aimed at the apparent lack of capacity to adequately disengage from unhealthy situations a lot of adults seem to exhibit. We're not used to saying "no" and to moving on. I was only saying this because similar situations happened to me in which I wished later that I could have disengaged and saved me some heartache.

I believe (only from reading this complaint) that the behavior exhibited by Mateen is unacceptable and reprehensible and that he's clearly at fault. My intention was not to blame her but merely to express a general observation regarding a lot of relationship failures I witnessed. So if this came across as victim blaming I sincerely apologize. It wasn't the intent.

Thanks for the link. The exhibits really paint an appalling portrait of the guy. He's acting like an insecure 14 year old.

I don't want to downplay the situation but I feel like it's your responsibility as an adult to disengage from situations like this faster than she did. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess but the whole situation seems to have been really mishandled (and that's a feeling I'm getting from a court complaint from her side). Again, I'm not saying she asked for it or anything, just that pursuing an ongoing relationship might not have been the best idea.

In any case, that seems to be a terrible working environment. I also find it kind of ironic that the co-founders of an inherently social app like Tinder appear so poor at handling interpersonal/romantic relationships.

You can't download Beta versions of dev tools without having a paid subscription, only released versions.

If you're just removing part of the image after cutting around it with a tool like this, having the object interpreted as 3D isn't really going to be of any benefit.

The impressive thing here, imho, is the seemingly effortless and seamless transition and replacement. The background is fixed and the surface texture is stretched in what seems like real time.

There used to be an apple on the key as well as the command symbol. At least on my (very) old PPC iMac.

So no one should be commenting on this topic unless they have a perfect understanding of scientific theory? That seems terribly counter-productive.

I'm commenting on this topic to share my opinion and, to the extent of my knowledge, try to explain why I believe someone else's reasoning is flawed.

Now if you believe my reasoning is false, you're free to call that out. You're not free, however, to dismiss my contribution to the discussion simply because I'm not operating under perfect understanding of a field that isn't mine.

Call it out, explain why, participate in the discussion, and drop the personal attacks. I think at least part of my point is valid, even after what you pointed out.

You can say the exact same thing about any scientific model. My view on this has always been that as long as the model accurately predicts experimental results, assume it is correct for your calculations until it is proven to be wrong.

Even then, we never stopped using classical mechanics even though they were proven to be wrong at a variety of scales. They just happen to very closely approximate reality in some contexts and are useful.

The fact of the matter is, we have tools that are correct as far as we know and they point towards thinking that every quantum system is computable. Until this has been proven wrong, the fallacy is believing the brain is different, not the other way around.

It actually IS demonstrably true that the brain is made of atoms. That makes it a quantum system, which our modern physics tells us how to simulate. The use of the term "impractical" here refers to the fact that we don't have quantum computers and that we don't have the computing power required to simulate such a large quantum system.

I'd say dismissing thousands of years of philosophy here is relevant, since it was likely produced before we had the tools to understand what we're dealing with. All experimental physics points towards an understanding of how quantum systems work, and that's all we need to model any quantum system. The brain is not any different because it's a brain.