Especially as self-hosting means loosing the community aspect of GitHub. Every potential contributor already has an account. Every new team member already knows how to use it.
You’re assuming people are self-hosting open source projects on their gut servers. That’s often not the case. Even if it were, GitHub irked a lot of people using their code to train Copilot.
I self-host gitea. It took maybe 5 minutes to set up on TrueNAS and even that was only because I wanted to set up different datasets so I could snapshot independently. I love it. I have privacy. Integrating into a backup strategy is quite easy —- it goes along with the rest of my off-site NAS backup without me needing to retain local clones on my desktop. And my CI runners are substantially faster than what I get through GitHub Actions.
The complexity and maintenance burden of self-hosting is way overblown. The benefits are often understated and the deficiencies of whatever hosted service left unaddressed.
When I publish open source code, I don't mind if people or companies use it, or maybe even learn from it. What I don't like is feeding it into a giant plagiarism machine that is perpetuating the centralization of power on the internet.
to me plagiarism is a 100% copy of intellectual property or maybe a high percentage, like 80%+
LLMs don't store the code, only the probability chains of tokens (words). AFAIK this is not plagiarism.
I remember the later 2000s, when a German company called "Rocket Internet" was copycatting companies like AirBnB, Zappos and others. Many consider this lame and some kind of moral freeloading, it's not prohibited.
Whether you agree with why someone may be opting to self-host a git server is immaterial to why they've done so. Likewise, I'm not going to rehash the debate over fair use vs software licenses. Pretending like you don't understand why someone that published code under a copyleft license is displeased with it being locked in a proprietary model being used to build proprietary software is willful ignorance. But, again, it makes no difference whether you're right or they're right; no one is obligated to continue pushing open source code to GitHub or any other service.
> The firm started out with a couple of desktops and an NFS server, and 10 years later ended up with tens of thousands of high-end GPUs, hundreds of thousands of CPUs, and hundreds of petabytes of storage.
So much resources for producing nothing of real value. What a waste.
Great project though, appreciate open sourcing it.
In theory what they are doing of value, is that at any time you can go to an exchange and say "I want to buy x" or "I want to sell y" and someone will buy it from you our sell it from you... at a price that's likely to be the accurate price.
At the extreme if nobody was providing this service, investors (e.g. pension funds), wouldn't be confident that they can buy/sell their assets as needed in size and at the right price... and because of that, in aggregate stocks would be worth less, and companies wouldn't be able to raise as much capital.
The theoretical model is:
- You want to have efficient primary markets that allow companies to raise a lot of assets at the best possible prices
- To enable efficient primary markets, investors want efficient secondary markets (so they don't need to buy and hold forever, but feel they can sell)
- To enable efficient secondary markets, you need many folks that are in the business of XTX
... it just so happens that XTX is quite good at it, and so they do a lot of this work.
These qualifiers would seem to belie the whole argument. Surely the volume of HFT arbitrage is some large multiple of what would be necessary to provide commercial liquidity with an acceptable spread?
Does the HFT volume actually matter? Is it a real problem that the HFT volume exceeds the theoretical minimum amount of volume needed to maintain liquid markets?
German here. My searches are probably like 50:50 German:English. I don’t notice any difference in quality with Kagi’s results between the two languages, and both are well ahead of Google.
> Meaning if they don't got the result they want, they will discard the study and you will never hear about it. Drug studies can be fudged this way.
You picked exactly that one field of science where this can't happen. At least in the EU (and US, according to Wikipedia), clinical trials have to be registered before conducting the actual research, so they can't be discarded if not successful.
This is sort of true, sort of not. The primary investigator who registers a clinical trial is obligated to report the results back to the registry. But if they get a negative result, they are still going to have a hard time finding a decent scientific journal that's willing to publish it. And an unpublished result isn't going to have nearly the visibility that a published result does.
I have a similar one for Homebrew, with the ability to preview package info and install multiple targets:
# ~/.config/fish/functions/fbi.fish
function fbi -a query -d 'Install Brew package via FZF'
set -f PREVIEW 'HOMEBREW_COLOR=1 brew info {}'
set -f PKGS (brew formulae) (brew casks |sed 's|^|homebrew/cask/|')
set -f INSTALL_PKGS (echo $PKGS \
|sed 's/ /\n/g' \
|fzf --multi --preview=$PREVIEW --query=$query --nth=-1 --with-nth=-2.. --delimiter=/)
if test ! -z "$INSTALL_PKGS"
brew install $INSTALL_PKGS
else
echo "Nothing to install…"
end
end
> EDIT: Thinking about it, I'm actually not averse to phoning-home, just the automatic/hidden nature of it. If brew asked me, every 5 or so times that I ran it, if I would like to participate in sending anonymized analytics to the brew devs, and showed me what was being sent (instead of obfuscating it), I'd be a lot more inclined to click "[Yes] - this one time" almost every single time ..
I'd take a minute to rip the fckng line of code bugging me every 5 installs out of the code. Thing is, if you make telemetry opt-in, it's the same as just not adding it in the first place. Only a handful of users will opt in, rendering the data pretty much useless, especially as it's install and install-fail counts.
If they included any personal data, it'd be opt-in by law (at least here in EU). As they don't, they don't have to, and I'm fine with it.
As a German, I can confirm it to be a problem here too. While we don't have as many trucks, misalignment is cancer. But even for cars with properly aligned headlights, all it needs is a slight hill to have this headlight blind me again. I think the real issue is lights getting (at least as percepted by the human eye) more and more bright.
What they lack, however, is deeper support for users on different servers (at least I couldn’t find any). Part of the appeal of Gitter is that it syncs with GitHub: kick someone off your team there, they’ll lose they rights in the Gitter channels etc. If I’m connected using another Matrix server however, there’s no connection to my GitHub account. So while one can obviously chat using this other Matrix server, there are no benefits of Gitter over just opening a room on some random Matrix server anymore.
reply