I think some people have a romantic vision of open source contributors: nerds that feed themself with "likes" on GitHub, simpleton that waste a significant part of they free time to write code to benefit few smart guys able to valorise they sweat enriching their companies. But "Open Source" is NOT free, there are licenses that must be respected and a company that use 1:1 an open source project , WITHOUT contribute to it development in any way, WITHOUT to release the modified source code, using the open source material to COMPETE against the entity that respect the license, commits a crime. You reflect on that primarily when the economy isn't that good and massive layoff leave the same open source contributors without a job. IMHO, I think that the system of licensing and enforcement of the open source licenses must be rethought. Moreover I personally saw company using 'free for open source' tools to develop commercial products , doing, in that way , unfair competition to honest companies that pay the due licenses. I'm also reflecting about my open source stuff, for sure I'll make some change about what I release and how. So, in short I think Mr. PRůša is right, releasing later the blueprints ensure at least some level of protection against unfair concurrence by cloners that if you have a company with employees expose them nd their families to layoffs. It is HIS RIGHT. But, again, I think the "open source system" should be modified to insure to open source contributors some degrees of rights protection.
IMHO, if you really "tell a CEO I can give him 56% more developers overnight" , he will sue you. Every programmer tried it out can tell that his affirmation could be right only for trivial part of a program, for non trivial programming part, it is more like a board game, where you try to induce the "AI" to produce the right answer modifying the "prompt" again, again, again, again, ( Did I tell you "again" ?) and again. <sarcasm> Obviously that is a customer fault because he didn't hire prompt engineers to do properly the job to describe properly the job they need be done </sarcasm>
> "On Ventura, every time you plug in a new USB device to your Mac, a small box pops up, asking for your permission to connect the device."
> "Of course, Apple would tell you that this is for security and safety reasons. BS!"
Do you know what ? It is for security reasons, attacks via thunderbolt are a thing, see for example here:
Sadly, we have two study cases about "how destructive are nuclear weapons" and yes, really, they are Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
I've read this article quickly but there is no mention to those events, the author only compare the power of a modern nuke with Hiroshima bomb. So, how can this article be a reliable source ? About the author, I don't see his name and after a quick google search, I can't find any endorsement to that website as reliable source. This is the second article I see on HN of the series "nukes are bad but no so bad" that are no more that blogger opinions, INMO. As usual, being liked transform anything on Internet in authoritative information by induction and this is bad.
What about this warning: do not enrich regimes, they'll spend the money they gain developing hypersonic missiles and invading free countries. Is it so difficult ? Before doing business with those ex-comie nations they should have given guarantees they had the will to became democratic. Instead, now, every time we buy a cellphone, gas, gasoline etc, we are financing their arsenal.
