Okay, I found out that on Reddit [0] that you can follow for updates on the website of High Court of Delhi [1] (though you may need a VPN as it seems to be geo-blocked).
As @diggan wrote[0] elsewhere in the thread, the issue is not that MIT is permissive but that Microsoft did not honor the requirements of the license (despite it being permissive!):
> Does it matter what license you use if they actively ignore the terms in the license you did chose? MIT requires attribution, but they didn't. Why would any other terms be different? You surely could have put "You must license your project the same as the one you forked from" and they still would have ignored it, not sure what the difference would have been.
> The TLDR here, IMO is simply stated: the OSAID fails to require reproducibility by the public of the scientific process of building these systems, because the OSAID fails to place sufficient requirements on the licensing and public disclosure of training sets for so-called “Open Source” systems. The OSI refused to add this requirement because of a fundamental flaw in their process; they decided that “there was no point in publishing a definition that no existing AI system could currently meet”. This fundamental compromise undermined the community process, and amplified the role of stakeholders who would financially benefit from OSI's retroactive declaration that their systems are “open source”. The OSI should have refrained from publishing a definition yet, and instead labeled this document as ”recommendations” for now.
Tweet by Alexandra Elbakyan, the founder of Sci-Hub:
> There is a new platform, Sci-Net (http://sci-net.xyz) where researchers can help each other by providing paywalled papers. The platform builds upon Sci-Hub meme token $scihub to reward active members.
For so many comments in this thread saying that it’s impossible to make all advertising illegal, we can certainly start with making personalised advertising illegal with all its invasive practices.
Twitter, Derek's SGC's discord (https://discord.gg/7fFFzNsPEF), and Alan's Matrix server are the three main places to find imagery. That and people's own personal web sites. Here's mine.
https://geostation.io/
Please don't criticize my site too much, I've not updated it for ages and historically I used it as a place to dump output from my geostationary satellite stations.
And I guess the other thing to mention is that x band data often adds up real quick, so it's nowhere near as prevalent in full resolution online. I'm basically surrounded by forest and only get sync on Chinese LEO sats at maybe 35°+ north and then lose sync due to the forest at ~30° elevation south. My resulting true color composites are routinely 400-500MB.
Someone with clear LoS to either horizon can easily produce composites that are over 1GB per image.
I think Carl was more of an early supporter and provided vital services without which TPB might not exist but I'm not sure if he should be considered a co-founder (or is considered so by the other three).
> On 3 January 2009, the bitcoin network was created when Nakamoto mined the starting block of the chain, known as the genesis block. Embedded in this block was the text "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks", which is the date and headline of an issue of The Times newspaper.
We’ve now come a full circle where the US government is bailing out crypto bros.
There are estimated 420 million owners of Bitcoin. The "crypto bros".
We don't need governments to "bail us out".
The value of Bitcoin rose from $0 to $2 trillion without ownership of large governments (small governments, like El Salvador, did benefit from that rise).
It'll rise to $20 trillion without U.S. government buying it because we're still in very early days of Bitcoin adoption.
People, companies, countries need Bitcoin much more than Bitcoin needs them.
> It'll rise to $20 trillion without U.S. government buying it because we're still in very early days of Bitcoin adoption.
That is the bail out. On the long term the value of bitcoin is negative because you need to keep the computers representing it running, and there is no inherent demand beyond "it might be possible to exchange it for more fiat currency - that I can use to pay taxes and buy food and shelter - in the future".
The only way to guarantee it has value is government backing because governments can tax and thus they can manufacture demand for stores of value of their choosing.
This strategic reserve is the bailout. It's the pay off. It's making the tax payers the bag holders. It's so incredibly transparent.
I believe people would (and already do) greatly benefit from cryptocurrencies but
a) Why would a government/state want to back a currency that it cannot control by definition? Especially if they own the world’s reserve currency. What’s the upside for them?
b) I doubt that Bitcoin is the answer with its slow transaction times, low throughput, high fees, abysmal privacy and non-fungibility. It enjoys the network effects and undoubtedly that’s the most important thing in a currency so there’s that.
Who NEEDS Bitcoin? Sure, lots of people have got in on the speculation, which is really an argument against using it as a currency (can you imagine using a deflationary asset as a countries coin?), but why is there a need? What common use case does Bitcoin make better for the everyday person?
It's not "cast as", it just is rapidly appreciating asset.
But yeah, knowing that $100 in bitcoin today might be worth $150 in a year does deter buying non-essential stuff. Why is that a bad thing?
Personally, It won't discourage me from buying a hamburger when I'm hungry, but maybe it would make me hold on to my iPhone for a year or 2 longer but you can do as you please and spend every cent you make.
Only until the dollar hits 0 in comparison. Then, it doesn't matter what a bitcoin is "worth", since it's all arbitrary at that point and it can be used as a pure economic unit devoid of any other context.
You should really read The Wealth of Nations before you talk about currencies needing "backed" or "intrinsic" value. It's not in the definition of money at all.
Today the most common use is is as a store of value.
If you have excess cash, be it $100 or $1 million and keep it in dollars, you'll loose ~8% a year, which is the historical yearly rate of US money printing which is the real inflation (not the fake 2%; check the inflation of health care plans, college education or housing).
To preserve that value you can do simple / safe (bank savings account rate, bonds, S&P 500 etc.) and underperform that 8%.
If you want to match / outperform that 8% (i.e. not loose money over time) you have to become a successful (better than average) stock investor or invest in real estate with all the hassles it involves (like managing tenants).
Or you can invest in Bitcoin, which, historically, over 4 years, outperforms dollars, gold, us stocks.
Bitcoin outperforms dollars because US can (and does) print as many dollars as it wants, whenever it wants. Bitcoin has a fixed limit of 21 million bitcoins. You can't print more bitcoin than that therefore you can't devalue bitcoin.
It's even worse in countries like Niger or Argentina because they print even more money than US, causing even greater inflation, making it ever more important to park assets in non-inflationary asset.
If you self custody bitcoin, you remove the risk your money will get confiscated by the government or bank.
In some countries you can already pay directly in Bitcoin.
In US you can use Strike to basically store you net worth in Bitcoin and convert to cash (dollars) to pay for stuff.
A web-native[1] protocol for secure[2], decentralised[3] access to files distributed across mirrors:
1. "Web-native" as in the protocol is designed with HTTP and modern web browsers in mind. Consequently, it can be implemented using Service Workers so that no additional software (nor even browser extensions) are needed to access files.
2. Files are addressed by their cryptographic hash of their content (a) to ensure the authenticity of the data received from mirrors and (b) to avoid hard-coding specific locations/servers (i.e. content addressing).
3. Files can be mirrored by anyone and users can retrieve files from any mirror; no party requires any permission from any authority. This is in contrast to traditional mirroring schemes, where mirrors have to "register" with the owner of the content (e.g. to mirror a Linux distro).
reply