Either you get fucked by AI when you lose your job because a CEO that destroys a business by adopting it in a moronic fashion.
Or your fucked by AI because you buy an Elon Musk robot that has that feature that you can unlock from the app store.
I pretty sure everyone hates my old fashioned classical liberalism with a touch of center left view on social democracy, welfare capitalism, mixed economy under a transparent and democratic governance. I'm usually the bad guy for saying that we should embrace and accept people who come from other cultures, but that also there is a dominate culture in this country so raising your children to speak English fluently is vital for their financial success.
My wishy-washy middle of the road politics upsets everyone. But most of those people deserve to be upset all the time.
Sounds like a good argument for putting the second amendment to use.
Why are we running python on microcontrollers, exactly? It's the wrong thing in production, so why is it the right thing for education?
Because the important thing here is to learn the microcontroller, learn to use the devices that are part of the project, learn the bus and protocols involved, etc. The language is an implementation detail. If you provide C and Python you have enlarged the audience that can get started learning these things.
Training upcoming engineers to use the right thing for the job is pretty fundamental
But you don't have to make them learn everything at once. If they know Python then they can play around with embedded, If they like it, want to do it professionally, then they can go C.
Why, does it not work?
The classic argument is that we are dealing with embedded devices with limited resources and possibly need real-time like responses.
But we're largely talking about educational projects, hobbyists projects, so such problems are probably a lesser concern. Wiring up a breadboard with devices and getting things to work is the important thing here. The language an implementation detail.
We know that Linux succeeded because of the license because major contributors told us in so many words that they chose to contribute to Linux because it was GPL.
No one disagrees that some developers prefer the GPL. Also, BSD did not lack developers. The market chose the first free *nix that was stable on PC hardware. Linux got there slightly ahead of FreeBSD, due ti the courts.
Linux made the GPL, the GPL did not make Linux.
This is just one more thing you are ignorant about. Don't you have a child rapists support meeting to attend?
Thank you for demonstrating that politics is the only thing you consider, and that speaking of ignorance is quote the projection.
The "major political parties" is not the same as "competing political candidates", period.
Semantics. Its still the candidate that people are going to want to see on TV.
your misguided idea that Kimmel chose not to broadcast Talarico's interview as a means of sidestepping regulation
"Jimmy Kimmel said Wednesday night that an interview with Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico would not air on ABC, with the Disney-owned network concerned about FCC equal-time rules. The interview streamed on YouTube on Thursday instead."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pol...
That's why I don't advertise my politics on my truck. If the wrong people in government found out that I am for a constitutional republic with elected representation and a system of checks and balances with three coequal branches of government, I would surely be labeled as an agitator, a far left radical, and perhaps even a terrorist.
Out in the alternate universe where folks are actually building things (instead of the corner office of the guy using business double speak) "success" also means "attracts competent developers and retains them."
That's a red herring. FreeBSD did not lack competent developers. They were held up by a court.
Many folks at the time did not want to contribute code that would just get stolen by proprietary parasites and *literally* sold back to them. Or to projects where improvements never made it back to the mainline.
Many people also supported BSD, and recognized its greater freedom. No strings like GPL. And you "stolen" is a GPL party line, not BSD developer lost a line of code. Every single line of code they supplied remained available to them. Only proprietary coded added to a GPL base was not shared. Guess, what the SAME thing can happen with GPL code. You can use Linux as a base and pile on tons of proprietary code and never share it, never contribute it back. You just need to only internally distribute the derivative work within your organization.
Those folks, in my experience, were the ones who actually both knew what they were doing
So did the BSD folks. Which is why the Linux folks lifted some of that BSD code for Linux.
... and had a strong belief that they were contributing something to the larger community
One, the larger community just wanted *nix on PC hardware. Most did not care about the politics of GPL.
Two, the larger community turned out to be the one who finished first, nothing more, the one not held up in court.
and not something easily looted
Again, the GPL party line. As mentioned above GPL can be looted too.
The truth is, some people are comfortable with a benevelent dictatorship. Others prefer complete freedom.
by the guy using business speak who just wanted more revenue.
Actually the GPL has nothing against revenue. Hence charging for distribution being allowed. Hence not sharing changes or additions if you do not publicly distribute the code and keep its use internal to the org.
Those folks, whether or not you agree with me, preferred contributing their time to GPL'd projects over BSD projects.
I AGREE that developers have the freedom of choice to go GPL or BSD. Its their work, its their choice.
What I DISAGREE over is that the politics of the GPL determined the winner, it was the courts.
Were you a developer at the time? If not. STFU. Stay in your lane.
Ah, thank you for demonstrating your political bias.
I was a a developer. Coming from a Unix based CS program. At my work many of us had a Unix background and were closely keeping an eye on things. We would have loved to switch our development PC to Unix. We evaluated SCO Xenix and something else whose name I have forgotten, small outfit, advertised in Byte magazine. Early 1990s we followed 386BSD and Linux. I've been using Linux since 1993. It was more stable than FreeBSD in 1993. That is what the majority of us cared about back in the day, those deciding based on the GPL were a fringe. Nothing wrong with them, they were just in the minority.
And if you really want to talk about who was the winner based on number of desktop users, that would actually be macOS. Which is Unix underneath the pretty graphics. BSD based.
The GPL today is a minor license, more permissive licenses are used far more often. GPL is really a legacy license due to Linux. The GPL has always been the choice with a minority of projects. Linux made the GPL, the GPL did not make Linux.
Sounds like a you problem, not an everyone else problem. Get some therapy for your fetish. Or perhaps you treasure your victimhood too much to ever do anything about it. You be you.
Most digital cameras filter it out these days. Sadly.
Hidden spy cameras, specifically designed to be hidden in clothing for secret photography, have been around since the late 19th century.
Nothing new here, dumbass. Including you being a dumbass.
Now go use one of your sock puppets to vote me down.
The exact same thing can be said of every other spy cam, which have been around for decades. They're not expensive, or hard to get. Why weren't you bitching about those 30 years ago?
It's great to be smart 'cause then you know stuff.
