One might imagine it'd be a draw after the fifth move, but the position after 1. e4 e5 is different from the position after 5. Ke1 Ke8, because of castling rights. So the threefold repetition doesn't occur until after 6. Ke2 Ke7.
> Allowing teens to willingly enter an employmemt contract is neither exploitive nor child labor.
Non-adult teens (“Teen” spans the border) are indeed children, and their labor – while in some circumstances, quantities, etc. – permitted, is regulated as part of the broader regulation of child labor (which is not a total ban, even for very young children, and is graduated by age.)
Whether it ought to be within the scope of acceptable child labor or not is a separate discussion, but it is child labor.
People learn skills by performing them. As parents we teach children life skills by having them help do the chore that daily life requires. When I have yard, mechanic, or construction work my children help. They have since they were able. I learned those skills by doing the same when I was young.
By prohibiting capable teens from work, either by pricing them out or law, we are hobbling their ability to learn valuable work skills. As a result we end up with adults that are lacking simple work skills that would make their labor more valuable.
Why does the C preprocessor need the #elif syntax at all? C doesn't have it, it just achieves "else if" by embedding the second if statement inside the else clause. But maybe that wouldn't work in the preprocessor?
#if FOO
foo();
#elif BAR
bar();
#endif
#if FOO
foo();
#else
#if BAR
bar();
#endif
#endif
For the same reason as in other languages (e.g., Perl, bash) with (effectively, in Perl's case) an explicit end-if keyword: so that you don't need a whole bunch of #endifs at the end of your conditional, one for each #if or #else … #if.
C itself doesn't need this, because you can write `else if …` without needing to put another layer of braces around the subordinate `if` statement.
I think a sort of reversed drop chess would be interesting: start with just a king each, and each turn you can either make a normal move or place one of your fifteen other pieces on its starting square.
`dirs` is a shell built-in for the directory stack. If you supply it with -v, it will number the output. So the trick is just to make these line up, which is also really just using a feature of `cd` that extracts an entry from the directory stack at position n. My aliases look like this:
alias dirs='dirs -v'
alias '1'='cd -'
alias '2'='cd -2'
alias '3'='cd -3'
etc.
Doesn't seem like it would make a big difference, but it's very fluid and adopts well to whatever "you happen to working on in the moment."
Maybe unmodified AGPL software can be run as a network service without providing the source code because the source code is already available from the original author.
Yup that's precisely my point -- if this is the case then where is the protection from aaS that everyone seems to think is there? All the provider has to do is just... not modify the software, or only make modifications that don't expose their proprietary orchestration systems and benefit everyone else in the process (but they really benefit the most, because they're making money off of the software).
If you get more nefarious with it, what if they started building tooling around it -- like a proxy that rewrote requests to fix a bug, or a file system that sat underneath the program that solved some issue with IO?
I also think that the majority of value delivered by something like RDS is not actually proprietary changes, it's just the underlying software being kinda good (because it was developed in the open, and the F/OSS community was leveraged as bug finders and fixers) -- I'm thinking mostly of Postgres. Even things like HA and scalability are often considered in projects these days, so you wouldn't even need to add much to check off the usual enterprise-y boxes.
Except for all the demanding jobs where you need to unofficially work outside your working hours... I live in one of those countries with a reasonable working hours limit, but I'm an academic, my partner is a doctor, both of us work "voluntarily" outside working hours. I need to prepare clases, request grants, and do research in a hypercompetitive environment where you need better CV than competitors. She needs to be up to date with the latest findings in medicine.
It does work for workers in many sectors, though. I'm not criticizing working hours regulations, far from it - just saying we should probably do more than that.
I need to prepare clases, request grants, and do research in a hypercompetitive environment where you need better CV than competitors.
Not to be unsympathetic, but it's baffling to me why academics, who are mainly smart, innovative people, don't band together across disciplines to reshape their environment and wrest control out of the hands of the administrators who frequently make their life a misery.
I don't know if administrators are what make academic life difficult. It sounds to me like the parent post is saying that it's difficult because there are lots of really smart and motivated people competing at near-maximum effort for limited resources.
That matches my experience in academia. The prof in charge of our lab worked a lot because he was obsessed with the work and wanted to succeed, not because someone was cracking a whip.
competing at near-maximum effort for limited resources
Yes, but why? Most academics I know are miserable and worn ragged by this endless competition. I'm asking why they don't construct a more favorable environment for themselves where they are not constantly being played off against each other. Administrators are part of that system, as opposed to being autonomous villains.
You both are well-compensated for that, though. You could choose to be a mediocre academic and she could choose to be a mediocre doctor. It’s a trade-off.
I was astonished to see the article treat leisure time as something to be optimized out of people's lives rather than as fundamental to their well being.
It's almost like they're trying to normalize a 6 day/72 hour week for everyone.
It'd be interesting to see a license that's permissive for non-commercial use and copyleft for commercial use. Or maybe the copyleft kicks in when the commercial derivative work starts earning a certain amount of money. It would be kind of like dual licensing under CC BY-NC and CC BY-SA.
I think it would still count as a free and open source software license, and it would allow small and independent developers to use the software without worrying much about the license, while requiring big companies to release the source of the derivative work.
It'd be interesting to see a license that's permissive for non-commercial use and copyleft for commercial use. Or maybe the copyleft kicks in when the commercial derivative work starts earning a certain amount of money. It would be kind of like dual licensing under CC BY-NC and CC BY-SA.
I think it would still count as a free and open source software license, and it would allow small and independent developers to use the software without worrying much about the license, while requiring big companies to release the source of the derivative work.
It would not count as free or open source
It goes against freedom 0, and criteria 5 and 6 of the open source definition
What I'm thinking of would affect freedom 3 more than freedom 0. I guess by "use" I meant "incorporate in another program". But I still think it counts as free and open source because it doesn't actually prohibit commercial redistribution, it just switches to a different license type.
It's GPL plus an additional permission that noncommercial derivative works don't have to share the source code.
Kindof like Qt? They have it set up so you can use it under the LGPL terms, but if you pay them, you can negotiate a proprietary license (for example: if you wanted to statically link[a]).
[a]: The LGPL allows proprietary usage, but only when the LGPL library is dynamically linked in. The reason being that if it’s a separate binary file (.so, .dll, etc.), the user can replace it with their own version. If you statically link it (embed it in the program binary), the full GPL kicks in (IIRC).
Whoever owns Qt now is so threatening (I suppose they think of it as "aggressive marketing" but it's really threats) that it looks safer to treat Qt as GPL, or avoid it entirely.
Whoever owns Qt is: Qt. They were spun off from Digia (the company that bought them from Nokia) in 2016.
It felt like Qt was (relatively speaking) all over the place when they were owned by Nokia, but have been in a slow decline of mindshare for years. Of course, that's concurrent with the rise of Electron as the cross-platform app wunderkind.
When they were owned by Nokia you knew Nokia wants Qt to be used everywhere. Now it's not safe to use it without a lawyer on retainer.
Plus, from my friends who still do Qt, they're trying to turn it into an Electron-like platfom with Qt Quick and QML and the result isn't exactly the dependable platform that we used to know and love.
That doesn't really surprise me. It's not really a bad idea, but it's also probably an idea that they should have been able to deliver five or six years ago, and maybe had something better than Electron by now. (And of course licensing that didn't scare people off seems like it would have also been a good idea...)
I think this is more likely to hurt a project than to help it. Companies will avoid it entirely, putting work into something with a more permissive license. If there isn't an equivalent, they might implement one, open source it (a lot of tech companies have open sourced some big things), and that will be the one that gains popularity.
As long as as developers are willing to develop something 80% as good or a company open sources something that good, the one with the messy license will never get the same traction.
The unfair coin that can't be more likely to give two different results than two the same assumes that each flip has the same probabilities (so k doesn't depend on how many times you flipped it or what you got). Which is fair, but maybe a coin could be built that tends to toggle between outcomes. If it was half full of honey, and you flipped it over once in your hand after catching to read it, it might be more likely to give the other result the next time.
Anyway, this is a bit outside the box; the point was that within a set of rules there was a problem that was impossible to solve.
