The intention is to sell this software in a similar way to Sublime Text. So a one-off fee for a perpetual license. The main difference from Sublime is that Trayce's source code is available. If GPL3 isn't compatible with such a model then I'll have to re-evaluate what license to use..
IANAL, but GPL3 is compatible with selling the software (see Linux distros). However, it forces you to open up the complete source code and it allows the users to fork and recompile it as they see fit (but they must also open up their changes if they distribute it).
No, defense in depth is a best practice because you assume that each layer can fall. It is more practical to have many layers that are very secure than to have one layer that has to be perfectly secure.
They say this about sports, which is (usually) a zero-sum game: If I'm attacking, no matter how badly, my opponent cannot attack at all. Therefore, it is preferable to be attacking.
In cyber security, there is no reason the opponent cannot attack as well. So, my red team is attacking is not a reason that I do not need defense, because my opponent can also attack.
My post was really was in the context of real-time strategy games. It's very, very possible to attack and defend at the same time no matter the skill of either side. Offense and defense aren't mutually exclusive, which is kinda the point of my post.
I'm understanding your statement to mean that caring about something because of itself, without external motivation (like validation or money), is neurodivergent. So neurotypical would be to only care about something if you profit from you caring about it? Is that reading correct?
If so, I have to disagree vehemently. That is not my experience at all and feels extremely homo economicus and - to be honest - depressing. I want to care about things I like and that bring me joy, even if no-one pays me for that or validates my choice.
It sounds to me like you probably are introverted, but might not be familiar with exactly what that means, or how neurodivergent is really is from much more common extroverted people.
Most extroverts aren't ruthless machivellian self interested people like you are worrying I am claiming, but they are focused primarily on fitting in and being accepted by others- and do choose their activities and behaviors mostly based on that. Their interests are genuine, but the biggest factor in them is usually who it connects them with, and how it makes them appear to others. What do your hobbies, car, clothing, etc. say about you and how will that affect how others see and treat you?
Introverts are, as the name implies, more inwardly focused- and although they enjoy social connection and acceptance also, it can be exhausting and therefore less motivating, and generally takes a back seat to more inwardly generated concerns. It is often wrongly confused with being socially awkward or shy, which isn't the same at all.
> or how neurodivergent is really is from much more common extroverted people.
Do you mean to say that neurodivergence is more common among extroverted people? If so, do you have sources for that? I have not yet heard of any relation between extra- (or intraversion) and neurodiversity.
It's not a bucket you fit people into, it is one aspect of a persons personality, out of an almost infinite number, and is also a continuum.
The idea originally comes from Carl Jung, and his point in coming up with it was for people that personally identify themselves as fitting into a particular bucket, to realize this, and be able to consciously explore the part of yourself that doesn't fit into it, that you might have ignored or rejected in the past.
For example, if you see yourself as an introverted person, and dislike extroverted qualities in others, it can be useful, for personal growth, to explore and accept your own extroverted qualities as well. I would argue that is nearly the opposite of "simply fitting people into buckets" - it is a tool that gives a perspective to do the opposite of that. To understand the complexity and diversity of yourself, and of others.
How does saying "Im an introvert" not put yourself into a bucket? Youre quite literally using someone elses made up categorization to define who you are, and people tend to speak of this as an innate and overcompassing trait, and moreover using these made up categorizations as a cause of other behaviors. I dont like making small talk with cashiers at this point in my life" essentially becomes "I am an introvert, so I dont like making small talk with strangers and its is never likely to be my thing".
I am perfectly fine describing myself with the actual details of my experiences. Its much richer and nuanced that way rather than simply saying Im not some way because Im an introvert. What Ive seen is the complete opposite of ehst you are saying. People label themselves as something and believe anything thst doesnt fit the label is not them, out of reach, a monumental step for them to do. Talking to a cashier all of a sudden isnt just muttering some words, its a foundational shift from being introverted to extroverted.
I think all of modern psychology/psychaitry suffers in this way: Making up categorizations with the belief that making things easier to conceptualize and making it easier to associate things is scientific and valuable insight. I think its the opposite. Youre losing precious detail and artificially killing complexity and getting simplified, untrue beliefs.
I dont need these labels to explore "my more extroverted qualities". Having never labeled myself this way, I had no issues being the complete "opposite"
The point is people are already unconsciously putting themselves in buckets- being conscious of it is the first step towards actually moving past it. By being conscious of exactly how you are doing this, you can also begin to explore and accept the parts of yourself that don't fit into those buckets (what Carl Jung calls the shadow).
The "buckets" themselves (archetypes) are simply explaining different aspects of human experience and personalities, but absolutely nobody fits into them neatly, and they are limitless- you could probably come up with hundreds of them if you wanted to. Which you think are important and worth talking about is really a matter of opinion or personal values and goals.
These ideas are widely misunderstood and misused in both popular culture and the social sciences, but that isn't the fault of the concepts themselves. For example, the categories in the popular Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) are from Carl Jung's archetypes, but people use them exactly like you said- to essentially justify their own behaviors, when the point is to explore the parts of yourself that are the opposite of that. This idea often horrifies people that are fans of MBTI and use it like you are implying.
I'm sure you would agree that people already have different personalities, and see themselves a certain way, and often dislike traits in themselves and others that are somewhat opposite traits to those. For example a person might see themselves as an analytical logical person, and look down on people who seem to be guided mostly by emotions. It can be hugely valuable for a person like this to start to understand and accept the emotional part of themselves and others, but that likely won't change the fact that they are still a person that prioritizes "thinking" over "feeling."
People often mistakenly call this Carl Jung stuff "pseudoscience" because they are misunderstanding it as trying to be science. It is not- it is a tool or technology for personal growth, and is not attempting to be a literal explanation for how the human brain works or anything like that. It would be more accurate to relate it to religious or spiritual practices like meditation.
The fact is that introverted people are quite rare compared to extroverted people, and extroverted people do tend to see it as a bad thing and want to do things like "help teach introverts to be less extroverted" but may be horrified by the idea of the opposite- learning about and accepting their own introverted aspects.
I've tried out some of the libraries, and it looks like they do calculate the difference between the installed version and the last (stable) release. If a dependency hasn't seen a release in ten years, those ten years don't count against the dependency drift. This is exactly what I would want.
However, they only check openly accessible (i.e. OSS) dependencies. If one of those hasn't seen a release in ten years, I would look for an alternative.
Yes, but it is quite uncomfortable to use, requiring you to get a session key and storing it somewhere. Instead, I've had good experiences with [rbw]. Maybe that would also be interesting for GP.
The market for these loss-leading services is skewed because Google subsidizes their free offerings so that they improve their ads branch. Because it is hard to compete with a free (actually money-losing) service, it is very hard for competitors to spring up. And thus the whole thing is anti-competitive.
If they were separate companies and had to compete on their own merit, not subsidized by the ads division, they'd have to ask for money too. Then, competitors actually have a chance to offer something better.
And through that, the reach of the ads business is limited unless they start to work with the competing services. This opens up the market for other ad markets, too.
And then we are a step closer to the free market that is efficient and good for consumers.
The argument "but if you spin off this major part of the company, it wouldn't be profitable enough to survive on its own" is the whole damn point. Using your monopoly in one area to prop up an otherwise-unprofitable arm controlling another area is exactly the kind of behavior antitrust law is designed to combat.
Too many people (especially around here) seem to forget that.
> And then we are a step closer to the free market that is efficient and good for consumers.
With Apple, Amazon and Microsoft doing the same in same markets... are we? Because it doesn't seem like "whap the random company that didn't pay enough for marketing" strategy isn't really working into establishing proper competition that benefits society.
Maybe... a different approach needs to be taken? How about starting to talk about legislation which would force large companies to allow competition into their vertical integrations - ALL of them, not just the single pet megacorp we hate this week. Level playing field and all that.
How would the market change in the wake of such a move? I can imagine that other companies will try to rebuild what Google was in other form. And these companies might not be US entities.
I've written my own tiny Python script for this, that launches the right executable based on the URL. It works really well for my situation with two different Firefox profiles.
Very interesting read, with a lot more depth and details to this short (but accurate) summary.