In the process of downloading this to run on a DGX Spark which is explicitly mentioned in their documentation. Never heard of it before but sounds good, too good to be true?
I'd have to agree with this stance. You choose MIT when you are happy to share your source with no strings attached. Some do pick MIT with this intent, but that was not the case here. But rather a case of either miscommunication or wanting to have the pie ("look how altruistic I am") and eating it too ("look how business-minded I am").
I mean, there’s a chance it’s exactly what he said, “I didn't give it much thought at the time, but knew that I wanted the code to be available for people to learn from, and to make it easily auditable so users could validate claims I have made about the privacy and security of the platform.” … it doesn’t have to be some to be some sort of nefarious OSS altruism, it really could be, “maybe people would want to see how this works”… that ends up leading to … oh crap a bunch of people who have never contributed, and will never contribute, are hosting versions of what I created and taking money that I really would like to have to feed my family.
To be unfairly cynical here, the sentence you quoted sounds to me like "I chose to not have a front door. I didn't give it much thought at the time, but knew that I wanted my home to be available for people to learn from my interior design choices and decorations. Then I discovered that people walked in, started to eat out of my fridge, leave dirt everywhere and carry off some of my chairs, and it hurts".
The fault here lies not with the persons who use the maintainer's code exactly in line with the license, no matter what other _intentions_ he might have had.
Possibly, but that would be pretty damning. A license isn't something you should YOLO. If he is that laissez-faire about licensing the source code then what other important aspects of the project has he not given sufficient thought.
Misunderstanding or failing to predict the legal ramifications of choosing an extremely popular license is in no way an indicator of programming care or ability. They’re different sets of skills.
Also, something starts off as a nothingburger side project, so you make some decisions based on that. Then it develops a bit, and turns into something you care about and are able to turn into a business. What people want and expect changes over time, and a license on a codebase that is basically developed by one person, isn't a marriage.
I was nodding the whole time until I got to this comment. This is the one that is unusual to me, because it would be my fault and the person informing me is just doing their job; well or not. They have no opinion about me nor should I of them. The whole transaction would be effortless if not for having emotions mixed in, I think those are best saved for personal relationships.
I would probably agree with the attendant if they told me "You were stupid for losing your ticket." I wouldn't think I was actually stupid, but being responsible for my actions is important to me.
Also, being adhd Ive accepted the bone-headed things I do/lose. It also wouldn't be a shock to find the parking ticket in the freezer a week later.
Their view of the attendant as a cog in the machine appears to be a justification for their "learned helplessness" to situations. They've internalized that certain policies they come into contact with in the world are non-negotiable and to attempt to negotiate is shouting into the void, thus a waste of energy.
To them, it's irrelevant whether the helplessness is real or not. So they don't bother to take a moment to poke at the attendant's capacity for resolving the situation to their advantage.
I wouldn't say that its an unusual view, but it may indicate a deep desire for efficiency (don't argue, simply pay and be on ones way), financial privilege (an extra $20 charge is no big deal), or could be symptoms of deeper issues relating to self-worth (I am not worthy to ask for a break).
Yoga is pretty good. Used to have a few bugs that stayed around way too long when it was abandoned for a few years. Development has picked up again though
I still remember my first credit in a blockbuster production, after a first few years in TV advertising that name no names, and it was exhilarating. My name is since forever embedded into the artwork we all worked towards. I was also paid, but with that money now long gone I just wanted to highlight that there is value not just in money.
The documentation for that specific module even calls it out as "painfully hard-coded biquad filter code", YMMV.
I'd guess those files aren't what the author actually edits - there are commits that suggest that they are _generated_ from "boilerplate", and even a few files that seem to have failed interpolations ("__MyCompanyName__" in some copyright lines, for instance)
A lot of files also seem to have duplicated code, down to individual comments. For instance, the comment on line 24 reoccurs on line 344 of this effect:
