No, it hasn't. The code was always BSD licensed, which says that you allowed to do exactly what Redis is doing. Nothing what-so-ever has changed in the deal.

Why don't you educate yourself before commenting in public and making an idiot out of yourself?

First, the people who contributed to Redis did so knowing they were contributing to a BSD-licensed project, which explicitly allows this type of behavior. It's precisely why a lot of people (myself included) don't like the BSD license. The GPL doesn't allow this sort of thing. So why do you think that Redis chose BSD over GPL? If you don't want your code to be taken and used in a closed source application, don't release it under the BSD license. If you do release code under that license, you have absolutely no right to whine about someone using your code in a manner that you con't care for. You explicitly gave them permission to do so. If you contribute code to a BSD licensed project and do so under any understanding other than "People can do pretty much anything they want with this code" then it's your fault for not understanding the license you used.

Second, the developers damned sure can use the "Redis" code they contributed and were allowed to use before. They can't use any ADDITIONAL code which is added to the project under a different license, but the last BSD release is and will always be available for use under the terms of the BSD license - which essentially means for any purpose what-so-ever. Claiming otherwise is either ignorance or intentional misinformation.

These types of draconian laws will ruin the internet if they are ratified.

It has been an open secret in the cryptography community that Hal Finney was the designer of BitCoin from the very start. Hal died in 2014. Or at least he was frozen in liquid nitrogen so not talking either way.

Besides being the first person to be involved in BTC who didn't hide behind a pseudonym, Hal published a paper that describes essentially the whole BitCoin scheme two years before BTC was launched. And Hal never once accused Satoshi of stealing his work.

The reason Hal had to hide behind Satoshi is simple: The Harber Stornetta patent didn't expire until about 9 months after BTC launched. That covers the notion of the hash chain. There is absolutely no way anyone working in the field did not know about that patent or its imminent expiry. Hal certainly did because I discussed it with him before BTC was launched.

So the big question is why BTC was launched when it was, why not wait 9 months to have free and clear title? Well, Hal got his terminal ALS diagnosis a few weeks prior: He was a man in a hurry.

Having launched prematurely, Hal had to wait six years after the original expiry of the patent term to avoid a lawsuit over the rights to BTC from Surety. He died before that happened.

Oh and I have absolutely no doubt Hal mined the genesis blocks straight into the bit bucket. The key fingerprint is probably the hash of some English language phrase.

The real inventor of BitCoin wrote a paper describing the architecture two years earlier under his own name, Hal Finney. He got a terminal diagnosis of ALS a few months before he launched the BitCoin service, the pseudonym being necessary at the time because of the Haber-Stornetta patent on the BlockChain.

No, Hal, did not keep the coins. He invented BitCoin because he was a crank with weird ideas about inflation, not to get rich. Mining the coins and keeping them would have been a betrayal of his principles.

The proof of this is given by the fact that Hal did not in fact get rich from BTC despite being the ''second' person to join the project. Nor did Hal ever complain that Satoshi took the credit for what was very clearly his work. If Hal had been just another person coming along, there would have been every reason to keep the cash.

And we do in fact know Hal ran mining servers from the start and that he ended up in serious financial trouble due to his ALS. The freezing his head thing came from donations.

Craig Wright does seem to be the last of the three early advocates alive but that doesn't make him Satoshi. Wright has never shown the slightest sign of being the sort of person who builds such a thing and in any case, Hal's name is on the much earlier paper.

It's a thing that is done by humans who aren't in-bred incels mistaking trivial absurdity for profound thought. You wouldn't understand.

There is a significant element of truth in what you say. We need to recognize and acknowledge that. But completely abandoning the concept of race is not the answer. There are significant health issues that are impacted by race. Sickle cell anemia and melanoma are two easy examples that correlate with race for different reasons, neither of which is related to social issues.

The popular concept of race was never particularly scientific, and the issue is absolutely muddied by historical prejudices. Most classification systems are artificial and boundaries are almost always fuzzy. The more you zoom in, the fuzzier things get. But that doesn't mean that generalized classification systems aren't useful, or have no scientific basis at all. Sigma taxonomy seems to be more scientifically valid than alpha taxonomy, but sigma doesn't abandon the concept of species.

Itâ(TM)s easy to switch the search default in Firefox to whatever you want. I use duckduckgo, personally.

Sell your Amazon stock, write a letter to the company, post on their Twitter, FUCK THEM for doing this.

> the AI generated content that's starting to show up on YouTube is just awful

Bruh, you said it. Something approaching a majority of 'tube video thumbnails are getting to be obviously AI-generated and it's really annoying. More than half the time the thumbnail has nothing to do with the video, and is not even featured in it when you watch. Basically false advertising.

Similar. I ran into an Amazon Linux-based instance last year that just would not upgrade properly, so we re-based it on RHEL. Problem solved.

Would not recommend AL for long-term instances.

...he's running the place (and reputation) into the ground.