PrincipleOfCharity

I have also thought this is a good idea. I think that the ActivityPub standard should have a required field that lists a copyright license. Then a copyleft style copyright should be created that allows storing and indexing for distribution via open-source standards, and disallows using for AI training and data scraping. If every single post has a copyleft license then it would be risky for bigtech to repurpose it because if a whistleblower called them out that could be a huge class action suit.

A good question is if a single post can be copyrighted. I think it could. Perhaps you would consider each post like a collaborative work of art. People keep adding to it, and at the end of the day the whole chain could function as a “work”. Especially since there is a lot of useful value and knowledge in some post threads.

You can do that, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind.

Different apps may only be compatible with certain database products and versions. I could be a real pain if you have to spin up a new version of a database and migrate just for one service that updated their dependencies or have to keep an old database version around for legacy software.

If you stop using a service then it’s data is still in the database. This will get bloated after a while. If the database is only for one service then wiping it out when you are done isn’t a big deal. However, if you use a shared database then you likely have to go in and remove schemas, tables, and users manually; praying you don’t mess something up for another service.

When each service has its own database moving it to another instance is as easy as copying all the files. If the database is shared then you need to make sure the database connection is exposed to all the systems that are trying to connect to it. If it’s all local then that’s pretty safe, but if you have services on different cloud providers then you have to be more careful to not expose your database to the world.

Single use databases don’t typically consume a lot of resources unless the service using it is massive. It typically is easier to allow each service to have its own database.

I’m confused. Isn’t the commission that is paid just a cut of the profits from sales? The 85% not paying commission would be because their app is free. Apple’s argument is that they are providing a huge platform and infrastructure for app developers; many of which are utilizing it for zero cost (except the annual $99 developer fee).

If someone then uses that infrastructure to make money then Apple takes a cut of either 15% or 30% to help sustain the whole thing. Those numbers are argued to be too high although they are basically in-line with the mark-up of most goods and services.

The real complaint is that Apple doesn’t allow alternate app stores that would compete, and theoretically push down the commission to whatever the free market determines is reasonable (and presumably below 15%). Apple, of course, argues that they do it for safety purposes. One way to offer lower commissions is to have less strict screening processes to save money. This could end up being a race to the bottom of quality which may not really benefit users.

I was like, “Portainer costs money? When did that happen. I thought it was open source.” Granted it has been awhile since I used it.

You want to check out the Community Edition. Here’s their Github.

Physics and math. J/k. I’ve seen similar numbers thrown about. Here is a link to a Quora question What happens to the human body when a submarine implodes from 2 years ago that may be of interest.

When a submarine hull collapses, it moves inward at about 1,500 miles per hour - that’s 2,200 feet per second. A modern nuclear submarine’s hull radius is about 20 feet. So the time required for complete collapse is 20 / 2,200 seconds = about 1 millisecond.

A human brain responds instinctually to stimulus at about 25 milliseconds. Human rational response (sense→reason→act) is at best 150 milliseconds.

The air inside a sub has a fairly high concentration of hydrocarbon vapors. When the hull collapses it behaves like a very large piston on a very large Diesel engine. The air auto-ignites and an explosion follows the initial rapid implosion. Large blobs of fat (that would be humans) incinerate and are turned to ash and dust quicker than you can blink your eye.

I believe the point of OP’s “thought” Is that death-by-implosion is basically instant (30 milliseconds) so it could be considered more humane than other methods.

Is the hash map immutable? If so, look at the rust-phf crate.

Big businesses already have figures about what a creator’s time and effort is. For small creators there would be some fixed amount, like $200,000 or something, that they’d be entitled do just by creating something. If they claim their expenses were higher than that then they would have to produce receipts.

I have to imagine that a number like $200,000 for writing a book or song is pretty good. Stephen King has written like 65 books. At $200k a pop that is $13 million just from book sales. That’s not including public appearances or speeches and stuff that could also earn money from the fame. That’s rich, but not stupid rich. Mr. King’s net worth now is like $500 million or something.

I imagine there would be a blanket amount that covers small creators. Something like $200,000. Now if a movie studio claimed that a new movie costs $150 million to produce then they’d would have to show the accounting for that. If they could then they would be entitled to maybe $225 million ($150 million + 50%) before the movie goes into public domain.

I have recently been thinking that copyright and patents should be enforced until the creator made back their money plus a set profit; like 30%. The reason for this is that it makes it similar to physical products which are often sold at cost plus some profit; usually around 20-50% depending on competition.

Doing it this way has some interesting side effects.

• It puts creative production on par with physical production.
• It requires transparent accounting.
• It covers the hard work required to develop something while not giving windfall profits to minor discoveries that just piggyback off the work of others.
• The more that is charged for a protected product, the quicker it enters the public domain. If you needed to keep a copyright for a long time then you wouldn’t charge a lot for it which is still beneficial to the public.

There could be some nuances. I’d imagine that there would be some threshold amount that covers smaller items. Maybe everything is covered for the first $200,000 or so. If one was claiming more than that for R&D then they would have to produce accounting demonstrating that amount. That way smaller creators aren’t necessarily burdened like a large corporation that does R&D for a living would be.

Obviously numbers could be fudged, but it could be set up so that is difficult. Accounting could be adjusted. Perhaps quarterly or yearly reports have to be made on which projects money was spent on. That way there would be a paper trail that would make it harder to pretend like more work was done on something than actually was.

Just a thought.

I’m not super concerned. It’s been a little over a week since stuff hit the fan. Contributors need time to learn the code base. People are starting to help with the easy stuff, but the two main devs still need to check everything because they are the only ones that can understand how those changes affect long term visions. Also, the urgent fixes are all somewhat-breaking changes which is why it’s looking like the next release is going to be 0.18 instead of 0.17.5. It makes sense to get as many urgent breaking changes in as they can before publishing, and it’s only been 8 days since the last release to identify, code, and test.

For personal projects this is fine, but I’m curious why you feel the need to have every crate be the newest? Once you have it compiling, why upgrade dependencies at all unless you have to? Compiling a new binary is way more work than just running the one that is already compiled. You talk about minimizing build times with this method, but it isn’t clear why recompiling at all with newer dependencies is beneficial.

Theoretically, every update to a crate is better than the last, but sometimes it’s just adding non-breaking features that you weren’t using anyway. You could just check crate updates every once in a while looking for performance gains or features you would like to make use of.