Yikes, the wording around consulting seems especially worrisome - are they effectively prohibiting third parties from providing redis technical support? This move will likely kill the project as it is today.
I don't understand how a copyright license can restrict consulting. If Redis Labs distributes redis to Alice, and Alice hires Bob for redis consulting, neither Alice or Bob are distributing Redis so the license terms are irrelevant to them.
I second this. How could a software license prevent me from learning about how a piece of software works and selling my own knowledge and experience to a third party.
IANAL but I couldn’t possibly need a license to install/redistribute Redis to talk to someone about how Redis works.
This is limitation around selling software/product not consulting, per bottom of post:
"...if your product is an application that uses such a module to perform select functions, you can use it freely and there are no restrictions on selling your product. However, if what you sell is basically the functionality of the module packaged as a cloud service or on-prem software, Commons Clause does not allow it."
Consulting is specially called out in the actual license as a no-no: "including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software"
Consulting is explicitly called out as prohibited in their "Commons Clause":
> For purposes of the foregoing, “Sell” means practicing any or all of the rights granted to you under the License to provide to third parties, for a fee or other consideration (including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software), a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software.
The adage used to be that porn drove innovation. We need personal computers to watch...porn. We need faster internet to acquire...porn. We need higher-capacity hard drives and better compression algorithms to store...porn. We need robots with more humanoid and lifelike prosthetics...so we can fuck them.
Perhaps this was true in the 90s-00s, but I doubt it.
The state of VR is greatly ahead of where it was 20 years ago but still just a novelty in the context of porn. The current advances in ML, AI and whatever blockchain ends up being used for have little to nothing to do with porn itself (recommendation algorithms and chatbot/NLP tech have application but aren't drivers). Robotics is being advanced by far more productive applications like manufacturing and putting unskilled humans out of work.
We may eventually get to the point of autonomous sexbots that leverage all of these technologies, but it's surveillance tech and the monetization of voyeurism (for advertising) that's driving today's advances, not porn itself.
I agree with your conclusion (the current state of affairs), but one could argue that VR has developed less optimally than if you had the porn industry enthused with the prospects of being the first players getting to that market. But this is pure speculation.
Though that comment may be somewhat playful, the affirmation makes good biological sense if you consider that porn messes almost directly with one of our most basic instincts. And although you can argue that ads do the same, the thing is that on ads, if they’re regulated and suited to the broadest public consumption, the appeal to the basic instincts has to be much more subtle. That makes it is less direct and less capable than porn for driving the tech resources to its development. But the difference may not be as substantial as I imagine it to be.
The first sentence of the Bitcoin white paper describes a problem that can't be solved by a normal DB.
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."
> "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."
Except it failed completely at that. The blockchain has proven through real world use that it is unusable as a currency. By its very design, it is fundamentally impossible to scale it to even serve even a moderate sized city worth of transactions.
> By its very design, it is fundamentally impossible to scale it to even serve even a moderate sized city worth of transactions.
1. This is far from proven. Scaling is definitely a problem, but I don't think it's at all been proven to be impossible.
2. You still have to admit that bitcoin has solved this problem at a small scale, which isn't nothing. Transactions without a trusted central authority are literally impossible with previous technologies.
But that problem isn't solved by Bitcoin (not can it be solved by any digital currency); Bitcoin doesn't allow online payments to be sent from one party to another without the need for third party clearance, it just increases the number of parties required for clearance.
for of has got a lot faster recently but it's still never going to beat the performance of a normal for loop due to the semantics - each turn of the for of loop requires a new iterator object to be allocated.
In addition to the several million dollar cost of the fairings they represent a production bottleneck - they're carbon composites which take a long time to make and require very expensive tooling. No matter how many reflyable first (and maybe in future, second) stages spacex has in stock, if they can't produce fairings fast enough they cannot go to space.
