I fixed the SVG graphs and made a couple layout updates based on the feedback here and some earlier feedback from my subreddit, see the before-after here.[1]
I've been mostly focused on function lately, the redesign is, let's say, a work in progress.
(Oh also, I use they/them pronouns these days [2])
> So no matter what you think of their current AUP they reserve the right to update it to anything they like in the future, and you'll have to abide by the new one!
I'm so curious if this would actually hold up in court. Does anyone know if there's any case law / precedence around this?
Of course, projects change their licences all the time, why wouldn't it be legal? There's a long history of startups who started with open source/open core gradually closing off or commercialising the licence. This isn't anything new at all.
This is why it's good to read licenses before adopting the tech, especially if it's at all core to your business/project.
No. Projects sometimes stop offering the previous license and start using a different one for new work.
But if your project is Apache-2, you cannot take away someone's license after the fact. You can only stop giving away new Apache-2 licenses from that point on.
The difference here is the license itself has mystery terms that can change at any time. That, is very much not done all the time.
Releasing a new version with a new license is not the same as retroactively changing the license terms for copies already distributed of existing versions.
Projects change license for new code going forward. The old code remains available under the previous license (and sometimes new). Here, they are able to change the conditions for existing weights.
I've experienced something similar, but the chair's discharge was interfering with a PCI riser, tripping just over some threshold that would cause the OS kernel to panic and shutdown. It felt so incredibly unbelievable when we first noticed the correlation that we called tons of people over to watch us demonstrate it just to see if there was something else we were missing.
Couldn’t you make a similar argument about protection rackets? Their experience shaking down places for money helps them build better defenses against it, right?
You could, particularly since protection rackets actually do compete with each other. I wouldn't want to hire a criminal, but if someone did, they'd likely be effective.
“All but X” is an idiom in (at least American) English which means essentially “99%”. So in this case it didn’t literally cure his insomnia, but is so close to having done so that it may as well have.
Native speaker here, this has kept me distracted on a couple long drives.
“X is all but Y”
Interpretation 1: X has moved so close to Y that it may as well be Y
-> X loosely equals Y
(I think this is the colloquial understanding)
Interpretation 2: In the set that represents X, Y has been removed
-> X is not Y
Excuse the poor notation, I hope this is clear! The tldr is this confuses me too sometimes
Yeaaah. But it feels like "all" could be everything that is positive OR negative, so if you have all the positive and all the negative, and you take the one positive away (or the most positive), it is slightly negative (or very negative)?
The only thing I can imagine here is that many of the games have "dle" or "le" suffixes and sometimes even describe themselves as "Wordle, but...". It seems more likely that it's NYT's lawyers hoping to bully the "competition".
Presumably in this case it has something to do with how Hershey owns the rights for Kit-Kat in the USA, but Nestle everywhere (at least as far as I know) else.
