"Uber has argued it should not be held liable for criminal conduct by drivers who use its platform, saying that its background checks and disclosures about assaults are sufficient. The company maintains that its drivers are independent contractors rather than employees, but that regardless of their classification it cannot be responsible for actions that fall outside the scope of what could reasonably be considered their duties."
"Google already pays Apple billions each year to be the default search engine on iPhones. But that lucrative partnership briefly came into question after Google was found to hold an illegal internet search monopoly.
In September, a judge ruled against a worst-case scenario outcome that could have forced Google to divest its Chrome browser business.
The decision also allowed Google to continue to make deals such as the one with Apple."
How much is Google paying Apple now
If these anti-competitive agreements^1 were public,^2 headlines could be something like,
(A) "Apple agrees to use Google's Gemini for AI-powered Siri for $[payment amount]"
Instead, headlines are something like,
(B) "Apple picks Google's Gemini to run Ai-powered Siri"
1. In other words, they are exclusive and have anticompetitive effects
2. Neither CNBC nor I are suggesting that there is any requirement for the parties to make these agreements public. I am presenting a hypothetical relating to headlilnes, (A) versus (B), as indicated by the words "If" and "could"
It's probably anti-competitive, but I'm not sure about your argument which is that Apple and Google must disclose details of their business relationships just because they are Apple and Google. You could maybe argue something like this should be a requirement of publicly traded companies, but the long-term effect there would be fewer publicly traded companies so they don't have to disclose every deal they make.
"I'd rather expose a Wireguard port and control my keys than introduce a third party like Tailscale."
It's always perplexing to me how HN commenters replying to a comment with a statement like this, e.g., something like "I prefer [choice with some degree of DIY]", will try to "argue" against it
The "arguments" are rarely, "I think that is a poor choice because [list of valid reasons]"
Instead the responses are something like, "Most people...". In other words, a nonsensical reference to other computer users
It might make sense for a commercial third party to care about what other computer users do, but why should any individual computer user care what others do (besides genuine curiosity or commercial motive)
For example, telling family, friends, colleagues how you think they should use their computers usually isn't very effective. They usually do not care about your choices or preferences. They make their own
Would telling strangers how to use their computers be any more effective
Forum commenters often try to tell strangers what to do, or what not to do
But every computer user is free to make their own choices and pursue their own preferences
NB. I am not commenting on the open ports statement
I am estimating when this particular package of disks was purchased based on additional information I am not sharing, not how long floppy disks in general have remained available for purchase
pyinfra is for running things across a number of machines and/or containers. For example to provision them, much like Ansible. So Python's startup time isn't terribly relevant.
Also, have you tried Python's startup time in the last decade or so? On my 2-year old, $150 computer with an Intel N100 (a very low-end CPU) running Ubuntu, `python3 -c "print('hello')"` takes 15ms. On my 8-year old Mac mini, it's 35ms. Both are significantly faster than what humans perceive as instantaneous, so Python's startup time is more than fast enough for many things.
When I use the phrase "too slow" I am referring to being slow _relative to other interpreters_ I use, such as the Almquist shell intepreter (NetBSD sh or Debian's dash), the ngn-k interpreter, the spitbol interpreter, the dino interpreter, the lua interpeter, etc.
HN commenters often state that "Python is (pre)installed everywhere"
This is not true on the computers I operate. For example, there is no python interpreter in NetBSD's base.tgz
Here we see a project that uses Python to run the shell, even though, if HN commenters are correct, "Python is (pre)installed everywhere"
Of course, the shell _is_ preinstalled everywhere and this project relies on that fact
IME, the shell and other interpreters are much faster than Python for what I need to do
I am aware of Python's current speed as it is sometimes a compile-time requirement for third party software that I am compiling. I remove Python after I am done
Here's the relevant (and entire) quote from an email.
> I am on the data strategy team at NVIDIA, we are exploring including Anna's Archive in pre-training data for our LLMs.
> We are figuring out internally whether we are willing to accept the risk of using this data, but would like to speak with your team to get a better understanding of LLM-related work you have done.
"People usually don't compile their browsers from source anyway."
But this is a forum that includes people who do compile their browser from source
As such, if promoting a new browser here, it should be expected people may ask about the availability of source code
I use an HTML browser that is a 2M static binary
It compiles quickly and easily on all the computers I own, and these computers are underpowered
This allows me to customise the software
For example, any "features" I do not wish to have, such as telemetry or other "automatic" remote connections, can be removed
NB. I am not expressing an opinion on the "Orion" software, I am commenting exclusively on the statement, "People usually don't compile their browsers from source anyway" appearing in a forum read by people who _do_ compile their browsers from source
The easiest way to verify "whether there is telemetry" is to look at the source code
To avoid telemetry, interested users can remove it from the source code
Whereas, if telemetry must be found by inspecting network traffic,^1 then users' only choice to avoid telemetry is not to use the software. There is no self-help. Users can plead with the author to remove telemetry to no effect
1. This may be complicated by encryption
Moreover, if the software is subject to change, e.g., "automatic software updates", then telemetry could be added at a later time, e.g., as part of an opaque "update". This requires the user to continually monitor network traffic in order to try to discover "whether there is telemetry"
If users have a copy of the source code, and use a binary compiled from that source code, then this burden does not exist
I was answering to a specific comment asking about whether one absolutely needs the source code to know that there is no telemetry. Not about whether it is reasonable or useful to want to have the source code in general.
reply