Readit Newsh34t commented on Quiet-STaR: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Think Before Speaking arxiv.org/abs/2403.09629... · Posted by u/hackerlight
Is that even possible, or just hyperbole? I'd bet the latter. I wouldn't be surprised if some people are able to fully unravel entire paragraphs of conversation in their head in a couple of seconds, but that's not something you could teach to children in general.
in Dutch (and German) the verb often goes at the end of a sentence, so the advice is rather practical.
h34t commented on AI for developers and Google Workspace blog.google/technology/ai... · Posted by u/alphabetting
"stay tuned for our waitlist soon"
h34t commented on Maria: A ClojureScript coding environment for beginners maria.cloud/... · Posted by u/macco
Developer here. We wrote Maria 6 years ago, and this fall I accepted a ClojuristsTogether grant to bring it back into active development. We hope to simplify/modernize the codebase to make it something people can hack on top of to add features & apply to new use-cases.
Repo: https://github.com/mhuebert/maria
ClojureD talk introducing Maria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUBHrS4ZzO4
Description of 2022 grant work: http://blog.maria.cloud/2022/09/30/Maria-and-Clojurists-Toge...
I'll be posting updates to twitter, @mhuebert.
Happy to answer any questions / hear ideas for improvement & extension.
I see an effort like License Zero less as an encroachment on existing "Free and Open Source" licenses and culture, and more as an alternative to behind-closed-door development.
I want to _sustainably_ write software, not for donations but by having people who want to use it, pay for it. If I have to go closed-source to do so, then that's what I'll do. I don't have a big company behind me paying a salary.
But I would prefer to make things in the open, sharing my process; I'd like to allow students and other individuals to benefit from my work, either freely or very affordably; and I'd like to charge for-profit companies a fair price for what they receive.
The open source community tried to trademark the 'open source' label, and failed¹, precisely because it is _too descriptive_: it sounds like a generic way of describing source code that isn't private, not a specialized term with specific ethical and legal implications. But nevertheless the 'Open Source Definition' campaign has been rather effective in limiting use of the term. So I'm not even sure what to call what I want to do: maybe "open-source-ish"?
Some of my work belongs under OSI-approved licenses, but not all of it, and I appreciate that people like Kyle are working, creatively, on alternatives.
1. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
>I agree that price discrimination can be a useful thing, but question the idea that only very large or wealthy companies should pay anything at all.
Because the more developers use a piece of software, the more valuable being able to use the software is. It's a classic network effect. Being able to write your commercial web app in Ruby on Rails is more valuable than being able to write it in a functionally equivalent framework with much fewer users of the software. This is straight from being able to hire developers familiar with RoR, access Q&A discussions, use third-party RoR tooling, etc.
Large companies tend to not be early adopters anyways, and they have the fattest checkbooks to raid for the value you're supplying, so it gets the most financial gain for the adoption loss you're causing.
I can see how that is true for some kinds of software. For many examples, network effects don't matter.
The first license I can remember paying for was Metafizzy's 'Isotope', a jQuery layout plugin. Great documentation and performance. I can't remember the price at the time, maybe $40 (now it ranges from $25 - $320). It was totally worth it, I was making money and clients were happy.
This suggestion is missing the incentives present for software writers. Open source drives adoption and the network effects of Google-ability and stack overflow Q&A, along with prestige for the creators. Straight up removing free commercial use does some real damage to the network building - your license prevents it from getting used for many projects.
What you want is a license that allows use in "cheap" situations without giving away your right to price-discriminate against companies that have large checkbooks. So, some sort of simple price discrimination screen built into the license. Something like "Does your company have 1000 or more employees? If so, pay us. If not, you've got a free license and 90 days to get into compliance if you change categories".
I agree that price discrimination can be a useful thing, but question the idea that only very large or wealthy companies should pay anything at all. What if licenses are low friction and affordable?
If we had a nice repertoire of flexible licenses available to play with, developers could experiment and try all sorts of ideas, including what you describe.
Non-FOSS-licensed software isn't going to play the same role in the ecosystem as FOSS software, but it doesn't have to. Plenty of room for different kinds of people/companies/software to co-exist.
This seems antithetical to the OSS movement, almost like a "Yeah, we released our code as open source, so everyone can learn, extend, and distribute. But we've changed our mind and SURPRISE - now we want a payday!" Open source only applying to other open source? C'mon - who are you, Stallman?
If companies have to pay for licenses to OSS they will simply stop using it. It makes sense to a business to benefit from the freedom of others. If devs are expecting a payday, don't release as open source. I know that sounds like I'm saying "stop being a jerk" and I am.
The idea of OSS has been the sharing of software with limited license responsibility, but adding in a specific license for commercial use thru a command-line interface is going to be too much of a nightmare to manage.
This will end up turning into another GPL border dispute (to use Heather Meeker's term). Which code is covered by the open-source part, and what's covered by commercial? Where does my software start and yours ends? I figured that if devs don't want software used by companies, they could use the CC-NC licenses.
Many companies have no problem paying reasonable fees to license software they find useful. I don't see why they should stop paying, on some kind of ethical principle, if a developer decides to publish some or all of a product's source code on GitHub with a restrictive, noncommercial-use-only license.
Why should a developer be accused of greed for publishing code openly, but with paid licenses for commercial use? How is this not better, in absolute terms, than remaining closed source?
> I figured that if devs don't want software used by companies, they could use the CC-NC licenses.
From what I can see, this is exactly what L0 provides, with the added _option_ that if a company _does_ want to use the software for commercial purposes, they can pay for a license with a credit card.
So, what happens if one license 0 project (A) wants to depend on another license 0 project (B)? The way I can see it, there's three possibilities:
* project A is now commercial and has to pay project B for the license
* a commercial project that wants to use project A now has to track down and pay both the owners of A and B (and any other license zero dependencies)
* a commercial project that wants to use A pays for A and B gets nothing for it because they are being used by project A (not commercial) and only incidentally by the commercial project.
I believe L0 makes your second option painless:
> Customers who want permission for commercial or non-Open Source uses can identify, price, and buy licenses for all License Zero dependencies of their Node.js projects, in one checkout transaction, using a free command-line tool