> I've had the same discussion for years now on HN. It is not unethical to decide to stop supporting something especially if you played by all the rules the entire time.
What's unethical is taking yhe fruits of other people's work private: ranging from code contributions, through bug reports and evangelism.
Companies are never honest about how they intend to use CLAs and pretend its for the furtherance of open source ethos. Thankfully, there's an innate right to fork entire projects after rug pulls, whixh makes them calculated gambles amd nor a quick heist.
> What's unethical is taking yhe fruits of other people's work private: ranging from code contributions, through bug reports and evangelism.
First, if it's open source, then the contributions are still there for everyone to use.
Second, if the license allows it, then the license allows it.
Now, if the contributions were made with a contribution license to prevent it, you've got a solid argument. Otherwise you're applying your own morals in a situation where they're irrelevant.
> Second, if the license allows it, then the license allows it.
I'm not arguing the legality. One can be a jerk while complying with the letter of the license.
I stopped signing CLAs, and I feel bad for those suckered into signing CLAs - based on a deliberate lie that they are joining a "community" - when the rug pull is inevitably attempted. I hate that "open source as a growth hack" have metastisized onto rug pull long cons.
> Otherwise you're applying your own morals in a situation where they're irrelevant.
Sharing my opinion on an HN thread about an open source rug-pull is extremely relevant.
I agree, along with the child comment. I think the issue is that if there wasn't some kind of ability to "rug pull," that we would see far fewer open source contributions in the first place.
I hate that a company can take a fully open-source project, and then turn it into a commercial offering, dropping support for the project's open source model. I am fine with a project's maintainers stopping support for a project because they have other things to deal with, or just are burnt out. I understand that both of these things are allowed under the specific license you choose, and still believe you should have the freedom to do what was done here (although not agreeing with the idea of what was done, I still think it should be allowed). If you want to guarantee your code is allowed to live on as fully open, you pick that license. If you don't, but want to contribute as a means to selling your talent, I still think the world would have far less software if this was discouraged. The source is still legal from before the license was changed, and I feel that even if the project doesn't get forked, it is still there for others to learn from.
With that said I'm wondering if there has ever been a legal case where source was previously fully open source, then became closed source, and someone was taken to court over using portions of the code that was previously open. It seems like it would be cut and dry about the case being thrown out, but what if the code was referenced, and then rewritten? What if there was code in the open source version that obviously needed to be rewritten, but the authors closed the source, and then someone did the obvious rewrite? This is more of a thought experiment than anything, but I wonder if there's any precedent for this, or if you'd just have to put up the money for attorneys to prove that it was an obvious change?
> For code, I am not as certain, nowadays I don't regularly see it as an artwork or human expression, it is a technical artifact where craftsmanship can be visible.
Humans are vital for non-craftsmanship reasons. Human curiosity and the ability to grok the big picture was vital in detecting the XZ backdoor attempt. If there is an wholesale AI-takeover, I don't think such attacks would have been detected 5 years in the future.
AI will make future attacks much easier for several reasons: changes ostensibly by multiple personas but actually controled by the same entity. Maintainers who are open to AI-assisted contributions will accept drive-by contributions, and will likely have less time to review each contribution in depth, and will have a narrower context than the attacker on each PR.
AI-generated code fucks with trust and reputation: I trust the code I generate [1] with or without AI, I trust AI-generated code by others far less than their manually generated code. I'm not aure what the repercussions are yet.
1. I am biased and likely over-optimistic about the security and number of bugs.
Manufacturers are now encrypting Canbus traffic, voluntarily on current and future models.
Buying or selling tools designed to break the law is already illegal - trivial or not. If a driver gets a DUI and possess a NOOP interlock, they are getting an additional charge, and get to help am investigation into the illicit device supply chain.
> Buying or selling tools designed to break the law is already illegal - trivial or not.
I'm curious how this will play out. The "John Deer" exemption from the DMCA comes to mind, not sure if it's strictly for farm equipment or still in effect.
> If people don't have jobs they don't have money to buy and therefore ... prices will have to come down
Here's the one trick the oligarchs will not tell you: they intend to bill the government directly, they won't care if unemployment rises to 80%. They'll keep it up for however long the taxes and debt will last, and then jet off to their bunkers to usher in what comes next - or wait out the chaos.
> He wanted to control the conversation that was unfavourable to him.
Same thing Thiel is doing for political control: attempting to inherit the religious right from MAGA -perhaps on behalf of hos protegé. Thiel's plans will likely outlive the movement's leader and/or go beyond 2028, it's a race against time to establish his bona fides while the sun shines
> also because they are willing to break the rules that are set forth by this bottom 99.9%[...] they are going about this imposition of their will on the world by doing it all themselves, through their own hard work.
I think all these wildly successful neo-feudalists get increasingly emboldened the more they get away with bigger and bigger social infractions.
It's also clear that they haven't experienced existed an environment with extreme inequality - it's not safe for anyone there! They think the NPC plebs will continue to follow "the rules" ad perpetuam without considering that it is a direct result of the stability they are actively undermining. They clearly don't read enough history.
> But moving from CUDA to ROCm is often more like a rewrite than a recompile.
Isn't everyone* in this segment just using PyTorch for training, or wrappers like Ollama/vllm/llama.cpp for inference? None have a strict dependency on Cuda. PyTorch's AMD backend is solid (for supported platforms, and Strix Halo is supported).
* enthusiasts whose budget is in the $5k range. If you're vendor-locked to CUDA, Mac Mini and Strix Halo are immediately ruled out.
Most everything starts as PyTorch. (Or maybe Jax.) But the inference engines all use hand tuned CUDA kernels - at least the good ones do. You have to do that to optimize things.
I'm certain inference engines don't use hand-tuned CUDA on Radeon or Mac Mini chips. My statement holds: those engines have no strict dependency on CUDA, or they'd be Nvidia-only.
> I'm also confused why this is 12U. My whole rig is 4u.
I imagine that's because they are buying a single SKU for the shell/case. I imagine their answer to your question would be: In order to keep prices low and quality high, we don't offer any customization to the server dimensions
That's just such a massively oversized server for the number of gpus. It's not like they're doing anything special either. I can buy an appropriately sized supermicro chassis myself and throw some cards in it. They're really not adding enough value add to overspend on anything.
It's not a prerequisite: I see lots of people plugging their cars at public chargers in my residential area; I assume they charge once a week while doing groceries or dining out.
And being in your car doing nothing waiting for the charge for 25mn is frustrating. Even more so when it’s the height of summer (and that was in a car where the AC didn’t block charging).
If you can time it with some errands it’s less of a hassle, but that was one of the main non-car annoyances with my EV rental (the other was the flakiness / unreliability of getting a charging session to start).
I only use public fast charging when on a long road trip. So the 30 min charge always coïncides with me emptying my bladder, so it's never been a hassle.
As I wrote, this was a rental, there was no charger where I was and no mains adapter provided with the car, so my options were fast charger or pushing the thing.
And even during long legs I don’t need to piss for 30mn every two hours.
> some dude with a decent gaming PC could decide to start scraping everything pertaining to their interests just for the hell of it.
Not from their single residential IP, they are not.
If they do succeed[1] - it is not going to be at hundreds or thousands of requests per second that the current AI scrapers bombard servers with. Some dude at home will, at best, be putting 4-6 orders of magnitude less strain on a limited set of servers.
1. Scraping is an arms race: if you're just "some dude" at the skill floor - you're going to have a bad time whether you're scraping, or defending against scrapers.
What's unethical is taking yhe fruits of other people's work private: ranging from code contributions, through bug reports and evangelism.
Companies are never honest about how they intend to use CLAs and pretend its for the furtherance of open source ethos. Thankfully, there's an innate right to fork entire projects after rug pulls, whixh makes them calculated gambles amd nor a quick heist.
reply