You also look bad when it goes down.

Even if the cloud stuff goes down more, when it impacts every company it makes MS look bad.

When your self hosted goes down it makes you look bad.

Did the article change? It seems very present tense to me.

Those of us that maintain/maintained *BSD has absolutely been contributing back to it. And so has most of the companies that have used code derived from it.

Your lack of understanding of the licenses and their economics shows through. I think you've been hanging out with copyleft FUD providers, since you're repeating copyleft FUD. Companies will contribute changes back to BSD codebases - just not always *all* changes. But more changes than if they instead got a source license for something else, like QNX or Windows. As a former BSD developer, my clear impression is that since the formation of Free/Net/OpenBSD the vast majority of relevant proprietary changes have been offered back to the open source projects. And by "relevant" I mean "changes that had a meaningful chance of being merged back into the mainline project".

Relevant changes not being merged back (e.g. that FreeBSD hasn't accepted the changes from MacOS) has typically been due to lack of review capacity rather than the changes not being offered.

Because he had been taken in by rms' propaganda about how the GPL increases freedom, as most of us was before we thought really really hard about it. Many haven't thought hard enough about it yet to change their minds.

This hides the cost of the GPL. A more appropriate formulation is

"If you want to force companies to give back all changes they make to your software at the cost of having them unable to make use of your software and contribute back at all in cases where they could only give back some of their changes, use the GPL."

I was a FreeBSD developer back in the day. I have worked for companies that made changes to open source software, both as the person doing those changes and in other situations where my team utilized open sourced code and other internal teams made modifications to it. My experience is that companies want to give back anything that is not strategic, and the changes they make to BSD-licensed code bases (really, all code bases) are mostly utilitarian rather than strategic. They want to give back for several pragmatic reasons: It avoids maintenance costs for their changes, it is good PR, their engineers feel good about doing it, and it creates a good relationship to the upstream project, meaning that if they need help, they're likely to get it.

In my experience companies contribute more to BSD/MIT licensed code bases than to GPLed codebases. It is very seldom that it would make sense for a company to make a change to a codebase under GPL and give it back and it would not have made sense to give it back under BSD/MIT. It may be different from individuals. Some individuals believe companies deriving from BSD/MIT-licensed code bases and don't give all their changes back are exploitative, and thus those individuals avoid working on BSD/MIT-licensed codebases.

Of course, if we convince people that companies working on BSD/MIT codebases is typically not exploitative, then the individual part will also impove.

I see l see nuetral headline 3 times.

I can see that the EU is claiming Russia is rabble rousing in France and if I want to know more I can read the article.

The AP seems pretty nuetral and fact based to me.

Rueters too.

I think the specs and the engineering are related.

It was supposed to be a new way to make light stiff cars.

It ended up being a unibody with wedges glued on. The look was a product of the engineering originally.

In the end it was a weirder looking Ridgeline.

Considering it mentioned MS I assume this is a warning for enterprise infrastructure and not retail.

I think (hope?) Amazon has had enough outages that people are semi diversified away from it. But who knows.

The half day Amazon goes down/slows up every year or so I think keeps people on their toes from fully relying on it.

I think it started by accident, but now it's just for fun.

Nice smooth window drags and resizes without tearing is pretty great though.

I'm curious as to how it's different than what they've been doing in general.

Didn't they have big ol machine learning competitions for recommendations a decade ago?

Weakest of the 5 games.

They messed up the level scaling something fierce.

The number is at least credible and not far off from the optimistic studies of actu productivity gain.

This isn't "we're laying off 40% and we'll do more". An 11% productivity gain is in the realm of reasonable.

You're probably right, but this headline does look a lot diffy than other AI layoff headlines.

I think my point didn't come across. My point was this: The laws in question aren't coded into the cash - they're enforced separately. The fact that e.g. Bitcoin doesn't code in direct support for those laws doesn't mean the laws don't apply, nor that they shouldn't apply.