Arduino responded to this recent drama just a few days ago, saying "Our 20-year commitment to open-source is unwavering" with a good explanation of the new T&C.

https://blog.arduino.cc/2025/1...

I believe Arduino is sincere with their statement.

One man speaking with Adafruit's social media accounts seems to feel otherwise. He probably believes he's doing good by raising the alarm. Maybe some of the points have some merit? But the tone really looks like an attempt to stir up drama and harm Arduino's reputation.

Adafruit does have history with Arduino. In 2015 when Arduino had serious internal division and conflict, Adafruit was manufacturing brand name Arduino Uno under some sort of license deal. That arrangement ended sometime in 2016. Adafruit quickly launched a product line of essentially Arduino clone boards named "Metro". Does any of that matter? Maybe, maybe not. But when reading what really looks like an attack on Arduino's long-established reputation coming from official Adafruit channels, best to keep in mind those 2 companies have a history.

I also have some history with Arduino, having made an Arduino-compatible board and contributed code and help over the years. I've personally met the Arduino developers and Arduino leadership folks several times at conferences. They are genuinely good people who've poured a lot of effort into trying to good in the world.

Maybe Arduino change for the better or for the worse with Qualcomm. I don't have a crystal ball. But I'm trying to keep an open mind and not get caught up in fear over basically boilerplate legalese.

"researchers that found state-of-the-art large language models face complete performance collapse beyond certain complexity thresholds"

Humans also face complete performance collapse with cognitive tasks beyond certain complexity thresholds

Pretty sure it was snapd that drove this decision. It's truly horrible for real daily desktop usage, causing many seconds lag for app startup and certain operations like selecting files to attach to email in Thunderbird.

Snap / snapd is pretty much like Windows Vista when the world was so used to Windows XP.

FWIW, I've used various Linux distros for my main desktop machine since 1994. Never in all these years have I seen anything like snapd which makes a high end desktop feel so sluggish.

if you were a "developer" relying on bullshit like "stackoverflow" it's a good fucking thing you got fired. holy shit the state of application development today on both desktop and mobile. maybe more layoffs needs to happen to get more quality software written by real programmers.

People who financially benefit from a Ponzi scheme before it implodes tend to believe they are involved in legitimate work.

Whether Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, I don't know. But one thing I do know for certain is people who are making money almost always believe they are doing good, even with plenty of evidence is contrary.

One constant of stock market bubbles is people riding the euphoria always say "it's different this time".

The real champagne celebration is still days away, and who will be celebrating remains to be seen.

Trump receives a huge number of additional bonus shares if the stock's price stays above $17.50 for 20 trading days, and lesser amounts at $15.00 and $12.50 thresholds.

I believe were at 14 or 15 trading days so far, though which day officially counts as the start isn't clear (at least to me).

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.

That's be some pretty impressive overclocking, as the lowest energy wavelength considered X-ray band is 3nm, which is approx 100 PHz. Or 100,000,000 GHz.

They can't even remember whatever boogeyman Fox News was scaring them about 6 months ago, so how are they ever going to consider anything from all the way back in elementary school contradicts the latest compelling political talk show drama?

If you do streaming or video recording, nVidia's 2000 series (Turing) made significant visual quality improvement in nvenc's real-time video encoding. Apparently nvenc is exactly the same in 3000 and 4000 series cards.

Makes me happy to see cryptocurrency called "market" and not use the word "industry".

Words matter.

Believing vaccine risks outweigh their benefits probably mean you have consumed a lot of misinformation about both the risks and the benefits.

Vaccine risk is extremely low. Any death which occurs within 3 months of the vaccine is counted by VAERS, regardless of the cause. That number is currently 17,392, which gives a worst possible case of 0.0027% of all people who received the vaccine. But every death even if not possibly related is counted in that total. Actual investigation of side effects has found incidents of Myocarditis, TTS, GBS are extremely rare (measured in parts per million), and usually even the serious cases are rarely fatal if treated.

Source:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru...

Benefits are substantial. It's been well established that the vaccines greatly reduce severity of the disease and change of death, especially if boosted within last several months. That's a huge benefit.

Source:
https://www.scientificamerican...

Anti-vax misinformation tries to say the vaccine has no benefit because you can still get COVID. Plenty of studies show recent vaccination does reduce the odds, so there probably is some benefit (only needs to be tiny to outweigh the extremely low risk) but the benefit of less severe disease when you do get it is a huge benefit.

What is dangerous is misinformation! The results are clear. Before vaccines, the densely populated states suffered badly and the more rural areas were much less affected. Now the situation is largely reversed, where populations more inclined to accept vaccination have lower per-capita death, and those following right-wing misinformation mostly have higher death rates despite having a natural advantage of less dense population to spread the virus.

Sources:
https://www.statista.com/stati...
https://www.texastribune.org/2...
https://www.nbcnews.com/health...
https://www.pewresearch.org/po...

You said you'd be willing to hear out any plausible explanation. I'm afraid the only plausible explanation is you're terribly misinformed about the risks and benefits. If you really are willing to hear (seems unlikely) just read a few of those sources for truthful information about the vaccine risks and benefits and the real world results of the misinformation you're probably consuming.

Perhaps by "in a year" you mean since the massive Omicron outbreak in January-March of *this* year? You know, the wave where an estimated 60% of the US population got infected.