The problem is indeed alignment.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49497146

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49488857

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49454742

Points: 42

# Comments: 35

That, by itself, doesn't have to mean anything.

AWS is far more compute capacity than Amazon needs, but that's not because Amazon misjudged how much capacity they need. They built it out to sell it to others, leveraging know-how and economies of scale to do so very profitably.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49045540

Points: 7

# Comments: 0

I never understood what the end game here was. If they had wanted market dominance based on someone else's OS, they could have just used the well-established Android. There was little to gain (their efforts of promoting Windows Phone would have also helped the competition's offerings) and all to lose.

Anyone know why these wouldn't be covered under a thick layer of sediment?

My impression was the other way around. The shenanigans he pulled around the Twitter acquisition were just farcical, and at Twitter he repeatedly refused to pay owed rent, etc. (I assume as a ploy to renegotiate terms).

Or if you're writing a test suite, and you want failing test results to be actionable.

Or you have any other type of behavior that you'd like to reproduce somehow.

One of the first things app developers ask for in bug/issue templates are the steps to reproduce something. I wonder why you'd think that they would suddenly be opposed to the concept when thinking of a build peocess.

Another thing to consider is that Debian has quite a few derivatives who may also rebuild packages from source, so you have a multiplier there.

I'm reading this as a suggestion that the reproducible builds effort was an ineffective deterrent.

However, note that your observation could also be explained by the opposite: the reproducible builds effort was an effective deterrent, so nobody bothered with attempts.

> And it just ups the the contribution barrier to Debian higher

Until yesterday, the package just got flagged in the tracker, and you could either ignore it, or fix it yourself, or the kind people behind the reproducible builds effort supplied a patch themselves.

Now, you can no longer ignore it. But fixes are often trivial. Use a (stable) timestamp provided by the build, seed RNGs with some constant (instead of eg: time), etc. These are best practices anyway.

> Both ethical and safe conduct depend on context and intent.

The same apples to knives, and they can be plenty useful, and used in a safe manner.

Hence why I'm so surprised that MZ, of all people, is arguing in this direction.

I would think that the potential for malicious abuse alone should have scared him off of this.

But I'm surprised that the risks seem to be so underestimated.

Once this clone exists, what happens if it gets out into the wild? Imagine everyone having full access do what is effectively a digital model of your personality. Imagine your competition putting your own model to use against you.

And the better the approximation of this model, the worse the damage to yourself.

I just scanned for WiFi networks and that worked fine. I also see that GPIO is not enabled for CIXP1 devices in Debian's kernel; I'll ask the kernel team to enable it.

I'm extremely curious what OpenAI's offer was. The utility of more money is diminished when you're already pretty wealthy.