You would hope a light bulb would turn on, but management who needs those sorts of conversations might often not have the wherewithal to do the right thing, never mind respond positively.

Like all generalizations, this is only partly true. There are bad actors.

> The active issue is disempowerment, created by other people (usually but not always senior) within the organisation.

Disempowerment (is that a word?) is necessary. So necessary, that entire departments incorporate it as a large part of their mandate. HR, finance, QA...

> So the question isn't "how to empower people", but rather "how to prevent disempowerment of people".

Or more, how to focus the disempowerment on things that matter?

> This isn't always popular, as it shifts the focus and responsibility for different behaviour away from the disempowered rank and file, towards the dysfunctional leadership.

Maybe it's not always popular because some disempowerment is necessary, and framing the entire issue as a necessity for its removal and those who disagree as dysfunctional is needlessly inflammatory and counterproductive?

Single comment.

Completely ignores the rest of the ongoing salient discussion about how, yeah, Flux-AI isn't really working for a lot of people here.

Astroturf probability > three nines.

It must be a difficult realization, when you're selling vaporware, that your intended market (a) has hard metrics, and (b) has the wherewithal to quickly determine whether those metrics are being met.

tl;dr -- customers, especially technical customers, even if those technical customers are early adopters and generally positive on the idea of the special sauce you claim to be adding, are much more critical than investors. At least until the investors understand what the customers are saying.

When you have a 12 inch ruler, you effectively have 13 numbers on the ruler. The fact that zero isn't marked is neither here nor there -- the numeral one is not at the far end of the ruler.

So if you extend the ruler to be as long as you can hold in eight bits, it will range from 0 to 255, and the total length will be 255.

The ruler analogy may seem overly simplistic, but then the real world is likewise fairly simplistic.

At the end of the day, the numbers presumably come from a sensor, or go to a display, and, often, in either case, zero represents as dark as you can get and 255 represents as light as you can get, so the physics dictate that the intervals associated with the 0 and 255 are half the size of the rest of the intervals.

Audio is more interesting than video, because in audio, you care deeply about not having an offset, and about having a balanced signal, so the question of whether the midpoint is actually on a number or not is pertinent.

In audio, it is often useful to simply discard a code so that 0 is the midpoint (e.g -65535 to +65535, discarding 0xFFFF). But this still gives you smaller intervals at both ends.

Soooo...

Let me preface this by saying this is an old (so things are different) anecdote (which is not the singular of data), but...

a) I had never heard of codeberg.

b) My company used an on-prem gitlab instance, and it sucked donkey dicks.

For example, the equivalent of just putting a statically generated site into github pages required running a fucking production pipe.

You should make the easy things easy and the hard things possible. Making the easy things hard is an immediate red flag.

> The problem is the inertia.

Oh, don't worry about that. Github is working diligently to fix that problem. The question is, are the alternatives worthwhile?

Fred was very knowledgeable, and Fred could think. But Fred had deeply held preconceived notions that interfered with the utility of his thoughts.

Fred also had something else, though -- he could set aside those deeply preconceived notions. Not for himself, mind you, but for someone else.

I could, and did on a very regular basis, go to Fred and say "Fred! Assume X, Y, and Z. What happens if A and B?" Now even though Fred was completely sure that I was wrong about at least Y and Z, he could set aside those prejudices, and (correctly!) reason through what would happen.

Fred reminds me of the people you describe, except that instead of having Fred's code running through my brain, I was able to insert my code into Fred's brain.

It doesn't work. For no good reason. Because there are a few anointed compilers.

That it wasn't on purpose doesn't make it not hostile.

But maybe not in the case of "all it took to get the internet connected was connecting the internet."

Make it make sense. Either in how Chicago is close to the Gulf, Brazil is on the Gulf, or in 1991 having a working wire thousands of miles long qualifies as a throwaway "all it took."

Then there's portability between compilers, which, as the article notes, glibc is also completely hostile to (except for anointed compilers) for no good reason whatsoever.

So, depending on exactly what you are doing it might take many hours to do a full build. And that might soak up all the capacity of a computer. And your Xilinx licenses are either node-locked (so only on that computer) or floating (so, only for one process/user on one computer at a time). You could conceivably have a big computer and timeshare multiple jobs on it, but (a) then you have to have the node-locked license, and (b) no matter what, you'll be slowing down your long job somewhat, by reducing the number of cores and amount of RAM available to it.

So it's definitely worthwhile to have multiple builds of different things going, preferably on different computers.

Organizations that use these sorts of tools typically have a lot of different tools that cost huge bucks compared to Xilinx software (think $100K/seat vs $4K), so this means that (a) they have entire organizations devoted to license management and working hard to ensure that all licenses are reasonably utilized; and (b) the relative cost to them to counteract this move by Xilinx (AMD) and just buy a few more damned Vivado licenses will not really be that high.

Now, do I think this is short-sighted? Yes, probably.

But do I also think that it could be revenue-positive for AMD in the short term? Yes, probably.

1) This could actually be an attempt to gain more revenue from big customers that have users who use the free version to test that code can synthesize and run unit tests (by pretending to use smaller parts), and then only use the paid version for the final integration into the actual larger parts.

2) This could give them more customer data more easily. They make no secret of the fact that the free tiers share data with the mothership for product improvement reasons. Maybe they only want to maintain the infrastructure to do this on Windows, or maybe it's harder for customers to subvert on Windows.

3) There will be people running the Windows version on Linux, and explaining how to do it, in 3... 2... 1...

For those not trying to implement the dark patterns that enshittify the web.

If you don't roll your own back button behavior, you've missed the opportunity to show a few more ads.

If you don't make your window full screen on my shitty old tablet browser (yes, I'm looking at you, BBC), then it's far too easy for me to close your window. (Joke's on you, though -- my old Samsung tablet has a physical back button.)

Just in case you're being honest about your own ignorance on this matter, you can start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Kacsmaryk

Yup, sounds about right.