Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | JetSetIlly's commentslogin

> That is only "nicer" as it allows to evade taxes. (Which some may consider nice)

Card only business can definitely evade tax too and many do.


Maybe not, but the process of creation and the final result will be of interest to other creators. Like any hobby it might seem strange to outsiders but it will be fascinating to those who are part of the scene.

It's more about installation location for me. For these types of projects, I don't even install it. I just clone, build and run from there. I have no idea where the bash script is going to put things.


Which also makes it not obvious how to uninstall it. pip/npm/cargo etc have well known mechanisms for that.

curl|sh is convenient for container images I guess.


The albums he did with Jon Anderson are worth a listen too I think.


His entire discography is worth a listen, honestly. Gems absolutely everywhere, and deep knowledge of his (traveling!) studio.


Similar to Discord's migration from Go to Rust. The measurements and reasons they gave were true but even by the time of the migration, Go had already moved on and improved. They were using an old version of Go.

Rust might be the right choice for Discord, I've no idea about that, but the problem is that the blog post lives on and influences people to this day.


> As a long-time open-source maintainer, I find all the second-guessing and armchair psychoanalysis here (not just in this comment, all over HN) about Tridge's motivations, state of mind, and so on incredibly off-putting.

Much of the language from both groups is incredibly off-putting, frankly. Tridge in his blog post describes people as "foaming at the mouth"?!

The rhetoric around this has gotten way too emotional from both groups.

I'm glad I'm just a hobbyist.


Tridge in his blog post describes people as "foaming at the mouth"?!

Did you see the picture in the article where the user posted a picture of them strangling the maintainer? I think “foaming at the mouth” is probably gentler than how I would characterise that.


IMHO, the whole episode is just embarrassing. I have no doubt he’s just trying to do the right thing. You can disagree with the tactics, but the vitriol is outrageous. rsync is a gift to the world and we should be grateful and mindful of how much it has been quietly woven into the fabric of computing. rsync is taken for granted. This is not okay.


> This is not okay.

Agreed. The way to address it though, is through calm analysis and reason. The emotional language from both groups is not helping.

If there's one problem with Claude et al, it's that it's all happened way too quickly for people to keep up. We're all at different stages of acceptance and I think that's what we're seeing manifest in the various discussions.


>We're all at different stages of acceptance

I do hope you see the irony of accusing people of armchair psychology and then hitting us with the five stages of grief.

I trust rsync (which handles critical data on my system) because I know a veteran of 40 years wrote the code it runs. If I see code like the one above posted by the OP, that the author wouldn't have written, I start to pay attention. When I then read the blog post of him saying that he'd "rather go sailing than fix rsync issues", I start to question whether the software is still written in a way I can trust and where it's going quality wise.

The problem isn't this weird gaslighting attempt that we just haven't let Claude in our hearts and souls yet which you seem to have determined is inevitable (spoiler alert, it is not), it's that a bot wrote crappy code and I wasn't even aware I was running it and now don't know to what standard this project is held.


> If I see code like the one above posted by the OP, that the author wouldn't have written, I start to pay attention.

Except the author did write it. https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/959#issuecommen...

Which is part of the problem with all of this nonsense right now - everyone is running off of emotion and not looking to see if what is being said is actually true. Which is somewhat ironic, considering the message of the article.


> I do hope you see the irony of accusing people of armchair psychology and then hitting us with the five stages of grief.

I just want to point out that those were two different commenters.


> The problem isn't this weird gaslighting attempt that we just haven't let Claude in our hearts and souls yet which you seem to have determined is inevitable (spoiler alert, it is not),

I don't believe it's inevitable and in fact, I'm thoroughly against the use of tools like Claude.

My reference to "different stages of acceptance" was only to indicate that people have embraced these things to varying degrees, and it that it seems to be this difference which is causing conflict in discussions like this. (I doubt I will ever fully accept it. A lot needs to change for that to happen).

I didn't really have the "five stages of grief" in mind when I wrote it.


Ferrari have long worked with third-party coachbuilders such as Pininfarina. I'm not sure how much autonomy Ive had over the final design, but if it's anything like the relationship with Pininfarina, etc. the design would have been a collaboration.


Though Pininfarina, Zagato and others have a long history of designing beautiful car bodies, many of which have more than stood the test of time.


And the press-release [0] sounds like Ferrari had very limited creative control:

"Introducing a team from outside the Ferrari Design Studio led by Flavio Manzoni invited a new perspective and cross-fertilisation, enabling a new design language to be introduced."

"LoveFrom was given the creative freedom needed to define the design direction of the project from the outset, translating this design language into an authentic Ferrari experience."

[0] https://www.ferrari.com/en-US/corporate/articles/ferrari-luc...


Sounds to me like LoveFrom didn't spend enough time learning about Ferrari first.


> Well, that and the fact that after the 48K beeper the 128K was never going to sound less than incredible

Some of the stuff people do with the 48k beeper is incredible though. Tim Follin's tunes for example are basically treating the beeper like a 1-bit DAC, with amazing results. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T42WuUpBuHE


Yeah, when I had the 48K Speccy I bought this and a shoot em up called Chronos, which wasn't by any means an amazing game (not bad for the £1.99 or £2.99 I paid for it, mind), but it was blessed with incredible intro music, which I think might have been another Tim Follin special.

It's not to say amazing results from the 48K beeper were impossible, but you had to work pretty hard for them, and you were definitely into wizardry territory.

But, it's also true that the sound capabilities of the 128K machine were a big step up (also worth bearing in mind you had the beeper and the AY chip - you weren't losing the beeper).


Follin also experimented with using both the beeper and the AY chip at the same time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1e2MOeo5eU


Aha - and as if by magic... yeah, I just mentioned that the 128K machine had both the beeper and the AY chip, and this is a great example of them in use together.


And there was Wham! The Music Box if you wanted to compose music :).

Here’s how it sounded on the original ZX Spectrum, equipped with only the beeper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNDVJLma-W4


As rudimentary as it is that actually sounds a lot better than I was expecting, and I think as a kid in the 80s I'd probably have been happy with it.


That's not enough in this case. The suggested mitigation according to the Dirty.Frag github page is to blacklist esp4, esp6 and rxrpc



I think there's a gap in the market for a much simpler type of git service. All I need is a remote host to which I can push projects for others to see. I don't particularly want pull requests, actions or anything like that.

Maybe a way of facilitating "releases" with compiled binary assets (built locally and uploaded).

Forks can be handled by people cloning the repository and uploading a new project.


Can't a lot of this be accomplished by disabling features you don't need? I just checked my Forgejo instance and per repository there are options to disable: Code, Projects, Releases, Packages, Actions, Issues, PRs & Wikis.


Yes. But I would like a public service that took care of that for me. So like github but without the bells and whistles.

Part of the reason for not wanting bells and whistles is for the service to have less chance of dying under a heavy load.


Pretty much what sourcehut is. In addition you get a public mailing list where people can send issues and patch to.


Oh interesting! I've heard of sourcehut of course, but never looked at it. Thanks for the pointer.



So we're back to cgit?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: