The italian counterpart of what english speakers call "bolognese sauce" would be "ragù alla bolognese". I've never heard anyone call it "salsa bolognese", it's mostly called "ragù" only as it's most common type.
Nonetheless ragù alla bolognese is made with ground beef and tomato sauce, so the italian version is simply wrong. Try and ask for ragù recipe instead. :)
That is the phrase Google Translate proposed: the exact prompt I used was "Come si prepara il ragù alla bolognese?"
I often consult several different versions of a recipe before cooking, and this feels like a normal degree of variation. Perhaps there are regional differences?
Just for kicks, I asked (in English) "what is an authentic Italian recipe for bolognese ragu?", and it produced a recipe similar to the version returned from the Italian prompt, noting "This version follows the classic canon recognized by the Accademia Italiana della Cucina". Searching on name of that organization led me to this recipe:
There are indeed regional differences, but at that point is not called "alla bolognese" anymore but "alla whatever place". People usually call it "ragù" and that's it.
Didn't know that the original recipe has pancetta too. It's good nonetheless. :)
All those features used to be usable even without their shitty software, as every configuration was stored in the mouse, as it should be.
The mouse was usable on every PC without the need to install anything, you had to configure it once and you’d be fine.
Logitech made the shitty decision some years ago to completely rewrite their mouse management software, so that it must be installed to use the main selling point features of the mouse. To be honest they left a way to store the configuration on the mouse, but they made it harder to find, configure and use it this way.
All this is a deliberate choice by Logitech to worsen the user experience just to gather your data.
I think the question is, what use is adding a CLA if the core functionality was under (A)GPL? Unless you go back and get all the OG contributors to sign over their rights, how can you relicense?
Yeah, exactly that's my point. The role of Arduino is like that of a Distro, they own the packet repository and the packet manager, and maintain a build-system and an IDE. They aren't the initial copyright holder to basically any library. The only thing they really own is the Arduino API, but this is an API not an implementation. The compiler is GCC, the board specific methods come from the hardware vendor, the C lib is newlib or comes also from the hardware vendor. The flasher software comes from a different company.
I don't really understand how what they try to achieve with these new "terms and conditions" is legally possible. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45978802) They could release new software with different licenses, but they would need to rewrite most of the ecosystem to do that. Neither MIT, nor LGPL, nor GPL nor AGPL contain any reference to "terms and conditions" of one of the copyright holders, which should be followed on top of the license.
I heard the rumor quite some months ago but it was mostly speculation, altough it made sense after they acquired Edge Impulse.
I'm not sure whether to be happy or not to be fair. Main issues with Arduino while I was there was the leadership lack of vision and the unwillingness to support projects coming from the engineers. It was a company kinda coasting and unsure where to go.
If they replace leadership with people that have an clear vision and focus this might be good.
My greatest hope is that people with stocks don't get screwed over though, they used to distribute them quite "easily" at a certain point to avoid raising salaries.
I've been testing out Jujutsu this weekend and this will come in handy. I still need to wrap my head around the different overflow and this might make it easier.
