Don't use a user agent that sends signed headers identifying you as a bot? How are any of the failure modes you mention not /improved/ by the spec proposal this comment section is about?
> I feel bad about my tweet, I don’t feel it was fair, and it fed the current era of outragism-driven-reading that is the modern Internet, and thus went viral, and for that I am truly sorry.
Building popular software doesn't mean you're a good programmer, especially since at that point Google was looking heavily at CS concepts and he admittedly wasn't good at that.
It's also possible he would have been hired if he applied for L-1. A lot of people get an ego check applying to Google where they're a senior staff engineer or a CTO at a small company and get an L5 offer.
True but surprisingly grinding leetcode puzzles also doesn't mean you're a good programmer. In fact, in my decades-long now programming career, I've had to take many more decisions of the homebrew kind (e.g. how the thing is going to work, how the API is going to look like, will the users love or hate that feature, etc.) than the leetcode kind. And now I am thinking the former is even more important. If you get the leetcode part wrong, worst thing your code would be slow. Not a good thing but also not a complete disaster - you can come back and optimize later. If you screw up the design and interface part, nobody would be using it - or worse, they'd be using it in ways it wasn't supposed to be used - and then it doesn't matter how fast it is.
it kind of happened, he went through seven interviews. from the same post:
> But ultimately, should Google have hired me? Yes, absolutely yes. I am often a dick, I am often difficult, I often don’t know computer science, but. BUT. I make really good things, maybe they aren't perfect, but people really like them. Surely, surely Google could have used that.
I don't think most people who behave in this manner have enough self-reflection to write something like that. They would rather write that they are opinionated, principled or decisive or some other bs.
Exactly this. No amount of cred, smarts, and genius that ends with "and I'm a bit of dick" will save you from my automatic red-line veto when hiring. I'm far from alone in this.
None of those people ever applied for a job at Big Corp where one of the most important aspects is to be able to work well with other people and tactfully navigate the social structure of the company.
Not everyone is a great fit for big companies. Not everyone is a great fit for startups. Not everyone is great at being a small business owner. And not everyone is great at being a regular employee.
Point is that Linus would be fucking miserable and ineffective at a generic BigTech co. He’d hate every second of it. And that’s ok!
Nobody is saying it hinders their prospects in general. They're just saying that "being a dick" is incompatible with a specific kind of job: one that requires collaborative and cooperative work with other people and navigating the social hierarchy of a company.
In my experience, it's the nice people that get fired and the assholes that get promoted. It's not exactly a secret that silicon valley is full of arrogant assholes.
I mean, he's also the same guy who apparently thought "Unix ideas that have worked for literally decades, nah fuck that. I know better".
It took over a decade before the project made some improvement on how the default install path is handled.
To my knowledge it still has absolutely atrocious dependency resolution relative to things like DPKG.
Not hiring this guy is honestly like a fancy restaurant not hiring the guy who comes up with the new McDonalds obesity burger special menu. What he created is popular, it's not good.
Google is not a fancy restaurant. Five-guys private consultancy is a fancy restaurant. Google is the McDonalds of all McDonaldses, it makes software that is used by everybody, whether they want it or not, and you can't turn a corner without hitting something they control.
It's nice to see TSMC's internal security teams are detecting these things, but it would be more surprising news if this kind of IP theft wasn't happening to be honest...
The soft prediction metric seems especially ridiculous to me. If I'm not mistaken, just picking at random gets better results than their ML selection at >= 5 predictions (1-(2/3)*5 > 0.8438).
However:
> your opponent's team is only partially known (you see their Pokemon species but not the moves, stat distributions, etc)
That's not true in the main competitive live format (e.g. NAIC 2025 which is the main case study here). These tournaments are "open team sheet", aka. moves, ability and held items are known (but not IVs/EVs).
I'm not sure whether this is the case on Smogon though, which means they might even be mixing two completely different datasets...
Google Reader was the last major user of the old social sharing stack at Google designed for Buzz, a product mostly remembered to these days for United States v. Google and the 2011 FTC consent decree. When people redesigned Google's social stack for G+ (e.g. all the infrastructure like Zanzibar underlying Circles, which to this day is close to state of the art!) the choice was between migrating Reader to the new tech - which nobody could justify the cost of - or keeping the old tech around for Reader when that tech was known to have had serious privacy issues leading to a major lawsuit.
There are several other programs like STF funded by the EU (often mediated via NLNet), and for example Servo gets some amount of its funding via NGI (an EU Commission initiative): https://nlnet.nl/project/Servo/
> AFAIK it's software RE work, and nothing done in the console hacking scenes is truly cleanroom at all
There's a wide gradient of how much effort people put into reverse engineering consoles in a legal way vs. just copying code straight from their decompiler and slapping an open source license on it. libogc is very much on the "didn't even try" side of that gradient, it's been known since pretty much forever, and even their documentation is straight up copied from Nintendo's SDKs for part of their libraries.
What's new here is discovering that even the parts people thought were developed "fresh" and not just straight-up asm2c'd from Nintendo are actually stolen from other open source projects in a way that tries to conceal the origin of the code.
Whether you'll find that "more morally reprehensible" or not will largely depend on your personal morals, but clearly for some people that seems to be the case...
Yes, libogc is a dumpster fire and the dkP org would be better served by rewriting a libogc replacement (w/ a different API) from scratch, quite honestly.
What I find odd is the timing, I highly suspect he learned about it many months ago.
> There's a wide gradient of how much effort people put into reverse engineering consoles in a legal way vs. just copying code straight from their decompiler and slapping an open source license on it.
English has no literal word-to-word equivalent to this - this french "à" is used to describe the main property of a noun, and the translation in English when no original word exists is via a nominal group or a concatenation of nouns. An "avion à hélice" is a propeller plane, a "bateau à vapeur" is a steamboat, or an "étui à lunettes" is a glasses case. So a "train à grande vitesse" is similarly just a high-speed train.
"of" in English here sounds like you're describing what the object is made of instead of its property. A "boat of steam" is made of steam, it's not the same as a steam boat.
You don't translate it, that's the point. Train à grande vitesse means high-speed train. There is no "of", "at" or "with" there.
Similarly, pain au chocolat does not mean "bread of the chocolate" or anything silly like that. "Chocolate bread" would be the closest translation but since this is ambiguous in English we just use the French word as a loanword.
You won't learn anything by trying to find an English analogue for words like à in French. It will probably actually set you back. You just have to learn it how natives learn it. It's French because it's French. There is no other definition and you can't draw on any other language for guidance. This goes for all natural languages.
It's not the "of", it's just that "grande vitesse" means "high speed", it doesn't have the undertones that "great" has in English. Unless I'm overinterpreting the meaning in English (French is my native language, not English).
> It's impressive how much internet censorship in Europe is currently being caused by this one group of extremely greedy people.
How is this greedy? It's clearly illegal behavior, both from illegal re-broadcasters and from users. Most of those re-broadcast services aren't even free either, they're directly making money from the broadcasts they're replicating.
The problem is that we still haven't figured out a way to properly enforce laws on the internet. Even for completely egregious violations there's no way to do anything once you track down the website to a bulletproof host in Russia or Ukraine or similar countries that don't cooperate. After 20 years of getting nowhere the courts have to find new and creative ways to enforce laws. I think everyone agrees that ideally this shouldn't be DNS blocks or IP blocks but rather these services getting removed from the internet and/or having to implement regional blocks to comply with laws. But there's just no way at all to make this happen right now.
> How is this greedy? It's clearly illegal behavior, both from illegal re-broadcasters and from users. Most of those re-broadcast services aren't even free either, they're directly making money from the broadcasts they're replicating.
Because piracy is a service problem. Pirate streaming sites attract users because they provide a better, more convenient service than the paid options.
We've recently seen this happen in real time with TV/movie streaming services: If you simply tell users "Pay us this single, simple and affordable fee every month and we will provide you with unrestricted access to the content you want, whenever you want", the users will come. But then the investors come knocking. It's not enough that you made N money last quarter, you have to make N+1 next quater. The line has to go up. So the subscription prices go up, the number of subscriptions required to access everything goes up, you start getting ads even though your subscription was originally ad-free, and suddenly the service doesn't seem so appealing anymore.
I've heard endless stories of people having to pay for multiple subscriptions just to watch all of their favorite team's games, and still missing out on some due to whatever new money-making scheme sports companies came up with this month. It's not hard to see why so many people resort to just going online and finding a pirate stream.
From the revenue extraction POV, the optimum price is such that user is unhappy to pay it, but is still paying, while raising the price even by a small amount would convince the user to cancel the service.
This means that the companies are constantly testing this edge, and check whether too many subscribers start to fall off the edge when the price rises.
Customer satisfaction is priced in: the customer is still satisfied enough to keep paying, by their own free will.
Entities like corporations aren't conscious and have no morality. They often discover and apply such things much like the biological evolution discovers and applies things. The closest proxy to morality that affects corporations is law; I assume here a completely legal, free interaction where the customer is not even held by an imperfect, monopoly-dominated market, like suburban internet access, or, well, sports events broadcasting.
disagree. in the US my family would need to sign up to 5 different streaming platforms to be able to view everything that we watch. So that’s 5 separate accounts i need to create, 5 separate apps to install, and i need to remember which app each TV show or movie is in on my apple tv.
And then sometimes only 1 or 2 seasons of a show are available for free on amazon prime, and i need to pay PER EPISODE for the remaining content. It’s also fun when a show my wife wants to watch is not available in our region - even if we wish to pay for it.
Talk about a garbage experience!
There’s a reason _some_ people with the technical chops set up something like plex or jellyfin, and source the content (via torrents or usenet) using sonarr, radarr, etc (the “ARR” stack). For some its cost savings. Others just can’t be bothered.
We can argue about the ethics of doing so all day, but it’s truly a failure on the industries part that they make things so complicated.
Just because you lack the capacity to understand something does not mean you are morally superior for it. It means you need to re-evaluate yourself and find why you cannot understand the fallibility of service providers.
i’m not doing it to save money. really. streaming is cheap as it is. But “content rights” are a dumpster fire. I refuse to use 5 different apps to watch tv / movies. the only one i pay for is apple tv+, because the quality is fantastic and i want to reward that.
I don’t understand why the rights holders can’t partner with apple, netflix, whoever, and offer EVERYTHING in their catalog. And just let me pay for it! In a single app. Kind of like how i used to be able to walk into a blockbuster and pick any DVD.
anyway we clearly disagree. i personally don’t feel guilty worrying about how Hollywood actors will get paid. Have a nice day. :)
Netflix gained popularity because they sold their service artificially cheap at a loss for many years to build market share and Kill off their competition, and that's it.
That's because they don't declare taking out long term bonds as part of their p/e calculations, just the cost of servicing the loan.
Netflix were borrowing circa $4 billion dollars a year to license content until two years ago. There's nothing wrong with that, but you aren't making a genuine profit.
> How is this greedy? It's clearly illegal behavior, both from illegal re-broadcasters and from users. Most of those re-broadcast services aren't even free either, they're directly making money from the broadcasts they're replicating.
It's both. The re-broadcasters may be violating the laws and laws themselves could be unjust, nonsensical, yet existing and enforced because of a group of greedy benefactors actively keeping them that way.
So basically the problem is reduced to "how can Italy fight against a crime happening somewhere in Russia or Ukraine"? Imagine there is a TV broadcast from Russia, how can Italy forbid it? They can definitely disrupt it (by electronic jamming), but not forbit it. Similar to Internet, the difference is the medium of transmission, not the facts of the matter.
In Communist times in my country I was watching cartoons broadcasted from the neighboring country. Adults were watching adult content at night from the same source. There was no way to stop that.
