[–]▶ No.885687>>885695 >>885710 >>885737 >>886469 >>887172 >>899418 >>899500 >>905668 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]
Post funny, annoying, and interesting examples of diversity in tech.
▶ No.885695
▶ No.885710>>885724
>>885687 (OP)
Idk i personally wouldn't mind africa becoming a decent continent and not having to be afraid of niggers attacking me anymore.
▶ No.885717
▶ No.885724>>885737 >>885861
>>885710
>africa becoming a decent continent
>niggers ceasing to attack you
https://youtu.be/1a-QpyF7rNc
▶ No.885737>>885756 >>885830 >>899501
>>885687 (OP)
>durr niggers xddd
Would you prefer them infesting your land fleeing from another war started by jews for oil/metals for Intel processors or staying in their own country?
>>885724
Explain Rwanda going from holocaust-tier civil war to being a more stable and cleaner country than some European ones in ten years.
▶ No.885755
Please put nonserious threads like this on >>>/g/.
▶ No.885756
>>885737
The blueprint for running a successful country is readily available, emulate the Western world. It's also easy to rapidly accelerate when you have Western technology at your disposal to aid you.
▶ No.885758
▶ No.885764
Just what we needed. More Go programmers.
▶ No.885788>>885829
>niggers
>gnu/linux
SAGE. Niggers can't use a command line!
▶ No.885793
>>885716
i love you /pol/ /tech/
▶ No.885794>>885849
Less people being exploited by proprietary software is a good thing you dumb fag.
▶ No.885829>>885844 >>885854 >>886947
>>885716
Came here for this.
>>885788
This. (pic)
▶ No.885830>>886482 >>886531 >>899385 >>899712 >>901872 >>904515
/tech/, it has actual diversity of opinion, as opposed to the cultist "diversity" of demanding everyone be at least one of faggot, nigger, woman or trap but think exactly the same or they're fired.
>>885737
>Explain Rwanda going from holocaust-tier civil war to being a more stable and cleaner country than some European ones in ten years.
What? I doubt it's possible for a nigger country to be better than any White country, except with some revolution going too far or a war. On kikepedia it says 30% of them are still illiterate, find me one White country that bad without going back to the middle ages.
▶ No.885844
>>885829
Fucking Steve Job and Bill gates got their idea from niggers. No wonder computers are so shit nowadays. Terry A Davis was right.
▶ No.885849>>885869 >>886470
>>885794
>exploited by proprietary software
You know that's not always the case, right? Some things just have to be proprietary by their nature in order to exist.
▶ No.885861
>>885724
I get negro fatigue if I just have to speak to one on the end of the phone, I couldn't imagine trying to organize them to work.
▶ No.885869>>885871
>>885849
>Some things just have to be proprietary by their nature in order to exist.
>>>/g/
▶ No.885870
https://youtu.be/cHPhuo4NtmY
I am subd to them on jewtube just in case anything happens, most of their uploads are shilling of either their IBM Cloud or pushing this sort of feminist and antiracist shit... sad, although I seen them try copy DWave with theor quantum computer stuff
▶ No.885871>>885885 >>886471
>>885869
Believe it or not, when you venture out of >>>/leftypol/, you'll find the real world isn't communist. It's very hard to make a profit developing GPL software, which is why almost all companies don't go for that model. When they do use open source, it's for a broader strategic objective.
▶ No.885885>>885888
>>885871
>It's very hard to make a profit developing GPL software, which is why almost all companies don't go for that model.
>Communist
You can sell GPL and other FreeSource Software for real money.
▶ No.885888>>885896 >>904453
>>885885
Sure. You can also build your own aircraft fleet and launch bombing attacks against the United States, but it's very hard to do.
▶ No.885896>>885914
>>885888
QT does it and it works out fine. You need a product people actually want though.
▶ No.885904>>886970 >>887011 >>887017 >>899429 >>899548 >>905897 >>905941
>>885900
>Led by Colorado School of Mines professor Greg Rulifson, the study tracked 34 freshmen engineering majors over the course of four years to explore what makes students, especially women, abandon engineering in lieu of other fields.
>Of the 21 female students interviewed, fully one-third left engineering by their junior year. Rulifson and his co-author Angela Bielefeldt identified one factor common to all female students who left: the desire to “help society/other people,” or “social responsibility.”
>"They pointed to a 2014 Purdue University study, which discovered that the vast majority of young girls want to grow up to be “successful and caring,” but they don’t see that as an option for engineering professionals. That study urged engineering departments to infuse a “feminist care of ethics” into their curricula to help retain women. By doing that, engineering students would be “provided with opportunities to define, address, and apply social responsibility continuously.”"
▶ No.885914>>885932
>>885896
>Almost all companies don't
>But this one company does
I think you're missing the point here. QT is also in a different position than most commercial software.
▶ No.885925
>>885899
This make me angry somehow.
▶ No.885932>>885933
>>885914
>But this one company does
Redhat, Apple, Oracle kinda.
I mean a lot of companies do. Linus makes nearly 1 mill annually on just his kernel and he's one of the lesser entities in terms of FreeSource revenue.
▶ No.885933>>885939
>>885932
Redhat sells services for software others write (they "give back" by providing systemd, pulse etc)
Oracle is where free software goes to die.
Apple is tossing out GPL as fast as they can, they prefer to cuck BSD for their tools. They didn't even. choose GPL for their Swift language.
Companies make strategic use of free software when it suits them. Can you imagine a company like Adobe switching to GPL for Photoshop, or something smaller like IDA Pro? They'd be out of business in no time.
▶ No.885939>>885943
>>885933
>Apple is tossing out GPL as fast as they can
You can download FreeSource of tons of their apps in addition to their kernel. Chess, Textedit, some Cocoa libraries, and much more.
>They'd be out of business in no time.
Why's that?
▶ No.885943>>885944 >>885947
>>885939
Do you understand the difference between GPL and OpenSource?
▶ No.885944>>885945 >>885959
>>885943
>GPL and OpenSource?
You mean FreeSoftware and GPL.
▶ No.885945
>>885944
FreeSoftware and OpenSource*
▶ No.885947>>886473
>>885943
inb4 the "it's not Free if it's not copyleft" FUD that Kikesoft has been shilling here.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
▶ No.885950
>it's another episode of dumb americans comparing their 56% countrymen to native africans
▶ No.885955
>FreeSource and Open Software
>inb4 it catches up as the next jewish buzzword of the year
▶ No.885959>>886456
>>885944
If your definition of FreeSoftware is from GNU, then yes Adobe will go out of business if they make their software FreeSoftware. Namely because it would enable Microsoft to distribute Adobe Photoshop in Windows to their customers (they have to change the icons), without any royalties to Adobe.
▶ No.886456>>886496
>>885959
>Namely because it would enable Microsoft to distribute Adobe Photoshop in Windows to their customers
Redhat gets by. Microsoft's entire software library is zero-cost too and they get by.
▶ No.886469>>886474
>>885687 (OP)
Africa is getting more and more industrialized by the day, so I don't exactly find the humor in this. This is basic economics. There is going to be a tech boom there because most people have yet to buy any sort of computer or even get on the internet. If GNU/Linux and free software is what they choose instead of proprietary shit, then more power to them. I would hope more people did this.
▶ No.886470>>886493
>>885849
>Some things just have to be proprietary by their nature in order to exist.
Then those things shouldn't exist.
▶ No.886471>>886495
>>885871
> It's very hard to make a profit developing GPL software
No, it's hard to keep a multi-million dollar company where the guy who keeps most of it is the guy that doesn't write a single line of code. Programmers can work just fine by commission.
▶ No.886473
>>885947
> "it's not Free if it's not copyleft" FUD that Kikesoft has been shilling here.
It is free, but copyleft preserves that freedom down the line. GPL all the way.
▶ No.886474>>886476
>>886469
India can't even get wiring straight, how do you think blacks can pull it off?
Blacks can't even maintain existing railroads.
▶ No.886476>>886493
>>886474
India is doing pretty well, and GDP in both Africa and India keeps growing. I don't know why you think this is some kind of impossibility. Even then, we aren't talking about Africa becoming the tech continent. We're talking about heightened consumption of technology due to increased wages. Last I checked blacks buy computers and cellphones and even manage to use them. Strange, I know, but I don't see why this should be looked at as anything else than an investment opportunity for western tech companies.
▶ No.886482>>886500 >>886888
>>885830
>/tech/, it has actual diversity of opinion
t. knuckle dragging /pol/tard
▶ No.886493>>886886
>>886470
Statements like this just make you look naive. You're a zealot parroting mantras on issues you don't really understand.
>>886476
Pretty easy to grow when you're at rock bottom.
▶ No.886495>>886516 >>886890
>>886471
You're the idiot who envisions software development like a blacksmith in medieval England, aren't you? Stop viewing everything as a "single guy commissioned", and view it as a business, because that's the world we operate in. You may not like it, but you'll be incompatible with everyone else if you pretend we live in a bygone era. Some projects are massive and require a large and expensive team to complete, which involves upfront investment. Investors are those taking the largest risks to get a project off the ground may make sizeable profits certainly, but that's the reward for their efforts. You're free to be an entrepreneur, or a 9-5 employee.
▶ No.886496>>886497 >>886511 >>886582
>>886456
How would Adobe Photoshop "get by" by converting their software to GPL tomorrow? Also, don't you think if that could somehow benefit them monetarily, they would do it ASAP? You might be an anarcho-captalist or commie, but surely you can agree that large corporations are well incentivized to earn as much as humanly possible.
▶ No.886497
>>886496
*Adobe get by... converting Photoshop to GPL ...
▶ No.886500
>>886482
>t. knuckle dragging /pol/tard
Translation: No arguments
▶ No.886511>>886513
>>886496
The same way as every open sores operation: SaaS. They're already halfway there with "Creative Cloud", all they need is to shift execution off the user's CPU, and they're home free.
▶ No.886513
>>886511
That's the worst of both worlds. Now you get a dumb "FreeSoftware" client, that can't do much more than violate your privacy as you login to your cloud service which could be denied to you if you're found to be producing WrongThink images.
▶ No.886516>>886570
>>886495
>You're the idiot
Apologies for being so rude. Of course your ideas are insane, but I should have been more civil.
▶ No.886531
>>885830
As online communities go, /tech/'s diversity of opinions isn't great.
People can say anything they want, but opinions are used as shibboleths. Have the wrong ones and you're told to go to >>>/reddit/ or >>>/leftypol/ or whatever, not engaged with on an honest level. Most technical non-political opinions are exempt, but that's normal.
Places like these rely heavily on shibboleths because they're anonymous. If you want to judge whether someone belongs, you can't use more than the content of their post.
It's a feedback loop. People who actually do belong but have problematic opinions learn to hide them because it never leads to productive discussion, so most of the people who show them really do not belong yet.
It could be worse. I'm sure there are places that are much worse. But /tech/ has the lowest diversity of opinion out of the places I visit.
▶ No.886570
>>886516
only on 8chan lul
▶ No.886582>>886584 >>886700
>>886496
>How would Adobe Photoshop "get by" by converting their software to GPL tomorrow? Also, don't you think if that could somehow benefit them monetarily, they would do it ASAP? You might be an anarcho-captalist or commie, but surely you can agree that large corporations are well incentivized to earn as much as humanly possible.
You realize that the source code only needs to be available to those who receive the binary, yes?
This will sound pretty jewish, but it works:
* Make contract for GPL software
* Make updates to source and binary available under the terms of contract
* Put yearly fee on contract
* If source or binary is made available to non-authorized individuals, make contract invalid and/or sue them for damages. you also have the right to DMCA the source code
This way, if you pay for the binary you also get the right to make modifications, receive support from the vendor and the vendor gets to keep the IP rights.
▶ No.886584>>886589
>>886582
>* If source or binary is made available to non-authorized individuals, make contract invalid and/or sue them for damages. you also have the right to DMCA the source code
This violates the GPL. You can't restrict redistribution to that extent.
GRsecurity does the closest thing to it that (while disputed) still seems to be just within the limits of what the GPL allows. If you redistribute, your contract is terminated. But there's no suing for damages, and no DMCA.
▶ No.886589>>886594
>>886584
Doesn't source code count as intellectual property? Can't you DMCA for your intellectual property?
▶ No.886594>>886835
>>886589
The way I understand it, there's no legal definition of intellectual property. It's an amalgamation of copyright, patents, trademarks and other things, all of which exist for different reasons and work in different ways.
Source code is covered by copyright. The GPL is a copyright license that covers source code.
You could DMCA people for violating the GPL, possibly. But the GPL forbids adding certain classes of extra restrictions, so licensing something under the GPL gives people the irrevocable right to redistribute it. You can't force people to take GPLed code down just because you own the copyright - you put the GPL on it, so it's theirs to share.
The GPL tries to make something free software, and keep it that way. There are a few tricks to make GPLv2 software sort-of proprietary, which is one of the reasons GPLv3 was released, but GPLv3 is generally good at its job, so if you get GPL software you can study it, modify it, demand source code, and redistribute it for free or against a price.
▶ No.886610
▶ No.886700>>886845
>>886582
You don't get to define non-authornized. Anyways, Microsoft would buy a copy of Adobe Photoshop, and distribute it to all their users in your scenario. This is why GPL cannot be used for all commercial ventures.
▶ No.886709>>886888
>>885901
>birth control made women free
My sides
▶ No.886835>>886841
>>886594
>against a price
no
▶ No.886841>>886844
>>886835
If ypu can't sell it it's not free as in free speech(tm). Those are the rules as set out by Richie Stolm.
▶ No.886844>>886846 >>886848 >>886894
>>886841
It's not free. Once you license your shitty source code with shitty GPL, you no longer have the freedom to sell the copyright to another person or business.
▶ No.886845>>886899 >>886900
>>886700
How about selling a GPL program for the cost of developing it + a profit margin?
▶ No.886846>>886891
>>886844
You can always sell copies of the software.
You can also sell the copyright, although you can't retract the GPL licensing. But the new owners of the copyright would be able to re-release the software under any license they like, GPL-compatible or not. Naturally that only applies if you do own all the code - if you incorporate outside contributions it's different.
▶ No.886848>>886891
>>886844
Wrong. The developer of CUPS licensed it under GPL and then sold the copyright to Apple (who cuck licensed it).
▶ No.886886
>>886493
>Pretty easy to grow when you're at rock bottom.
That's true, but that's what is going to make a ton of money. China is still worse than fucking Mexico poor, and just because of the amount of people there, billions have been made due to foreign investment. Africa is much the same. Sell a $2 product to every African, and you've made yourself a very wealthy guy.
▶ No.886888
>>886482
>can't think
>calls names
>makes no argument
Must be a niggerbrained woman. You made anon's point faux diversity cuck.
>>886709
Free from loving husbands and functional satisfying families.:^)
▶ No.886890>>886903
>>886495
>because that's the world we operate in.
This does not imply it's the world we have to operate in. So the supposition that some things have to operate in a certain way is false. If we always accepted things as they are, there would be no change. Pushing against the status quo should be the goal of everyone interested in technology.
> Investors are those taking the largest risks to get a project off the ground may make sizeable profits certainly, but that's the reward for their efforts. You're free to be an entrepreneur, or a 9-5 employee.
With the lack of job security quickly catching up to pretty much everyone, the 9-5 employee is going to be a thing of the past. This is a lie peddled by faggots that are wannabe idea guys. The only relationship that matters is that of the user and the dev, not some middle man faggot investor. Let people put their money directly in the dev's pocket.
▶ No.886891>>886897
>>886846
How can you sell the copyright and allow the new owners to re-license the software if the software once it's licensed under GPL is permanently and forever licensed as GPL?
>>886848
Not under the GPL. Show me where it says you can sell the copyright and can revoke the GPL licensing.
▶ No.886894
>>886844
>Once you license your shitty source code with shitty GPL, you no longer have the freedom to sell the copyright to another person or business.
Dual licensing is a thing, stop making shit up.
▶ No.886897>>886905
>>886891
>How can you sell the copyright and allow the new owners to re-license the software if the software once it's licensed under GPL is permanently and forever licensed as GPL?
You can't revoke the license of those that already received a copy(and therefore a license), but you can simply license future versions under another license. It is your software, you can still do whatever you want with it, but only you can change the license, nobody else can, as they are only licensees, not copyright holders.
▶ No.886899
>>886845
Because you would need to know a priori what your max profit ceiling is, and then have the arduous task of getting someone (or a group) to buy it in one go. In reality, companies reinvest their profits to hire new staff, some developers and others in marketing to expand the reach of the software to new people.
▶ No.886900>>886909
>>886845
We should just develop a patreon alternative for GPL projects, and then programmers could have a full-time job while constantly working only on free software.
▶ No.886903>>886908
>>886890
>Things aren't the way they, because I don't want them to be.
I'd also like to end usury, but it's a bit hard with only wishful thinking.
▶ No.886905>>886911
>>886897
Yep. The one big caveat here is that you (or your group) need to be the sole owner of the copyright. Which means you either reject all outside contributors, or make them sign a contributor agreement which assigns copyright to you.
▶ No.886908>>886914
>>886903
I didn't say that. I said there is no inherent necessity for them to be that way. Usury, on the other hand, can't end without ending the system of capitalism, since this is the way we expand and contract the monetary system. This would apply even to gold, as owed gold is just as good as real gold from a properly insured source. Unless you're some kind of communist, you can't end usury, but you could argue this case and I would agree that usury is not an inherently necessary part of society, just one of the current kind. I don't disagree that the current mode of development is the financially necessary one, but I do think that it doesn't have to be this way, and that we're quickly trending toward doing things another way simply because employers are more than willing to throw programmers under the bus.
▶ No.886909>>886912
>>886900
It's not a bad idea, but how do you incentivize people to donate? What is in it for them?
▶ No.886911
>>886905
Exactly, this is why Linux cannot into GPLv3, because there is no such clause.
▶ No.886912>>886914 >>886916
>>886909
Well, they're getting good software out of it. MS and Apple are planning to rent SaaS to the user anyway. Adobe already does this. Why not put your money toward something that you're going to own and not something that can suddenly be changed to fuck you over even harder? I think that the motivation is quite clear, but we as the Free Software community have to make the case by starting to do it ourselves first.
▶ No.886914>>886917 >>887211
>>886908
> employers are more than willing to throw programmers under the bus.
You know, the only thing that is really stopping me from agreeing with you, in some fashion, is the GPL "Freedom" to redistribute. Remove that, and I have no problem with building businesses (read: a living for programmers) with open source software.
>>886912
>we as the Free Software community
>we
ahh, it's the collective voice speak again ;)
▶ No.886916
>>886912
>Why not put your money toward something that you're going to own and not something that can suddenly be changed to fuck you over even harder?
A good counter example is Sage, and it's attempt to unseat Mathematica. It has a competent developer, a Math PhD who retired from his post just to work on sage. Yet it's not popular or well funded. Why? Because people want something good 'right now', and they'll spend money on something tangible, instead of an idea.
▶ No.886917>>886967
>>886914
>Remove that, and I have no problem with building businesses (read: a living for programmers) with open source software.
No. I'm not an Open Source advocate. I'm a Free Software advocate. I guess it's because I'm more of an academic, but I don't like being shut out of cool shit or being prevented by the current system, especially one that relies heavily on software patents (which shouldn't even exist).
>ahh, it's the collective voice speak again ;)
Bitch, that's the royal we.
▶ No.886947
>>885829
he wasn't wrong though. just look at what happend to computers. the first consumer grade computers used a very easy language called basic that allowed pretty much anyone to write programs. it actually taught people how to use code. then the windows thing came and gave us win32api's and horrible useless interfaces.
▶ No.886967>>887023 >>887035 >>887209 >>899394
>>886917
The trouble is I just don't see how a company keeps the lights on with the freedom to redistribute, which essentially, gives away the store. I want end users to have the freedom to inspect how the code works, and even adjust it for their own needs, but it's too easy for people to get around the inconvenience of having to fund the development. I cannot tell you how many "I fucking love open source" faggots I've met who will espouse all the benefits but shy away when asked do if they money or code to their beloved project.
▶ No.886970
>>885904
> 34
Sample size everyone
▶ No.887011
>>885904
>women don't want to do engineering because they want to do something else
<oy vey lets use feminist care of "ethics" to trick them into doing it anyway
A few years down the road feminists will be forcing women at gunpoint to take engineering.
▶ No.887017
>>885904
>colorado school of mines
fuck I'm going there next semester
▶ No.887023>>887033 >>887036
>>886967
The internet isn't the only place you can you can sell software. For example you can sell it at a store to normals. Or you could go to a convention and sell your product there. You could sell disk copies online that come bundled with a nice box and instruction manual.
Being a place that just offers downloading a binary don't set you apart.
▶ No.887033
>>887023
> For example you can sell it at a store to normals.
Oh lordy. You have no idea how difficult that is. You talk about wanting to cut out middlemen, dealing with store distributions is especially tiresome. I think Walmart might even be worse than Apple for taking a cut.
▶ No.887035>>887039
>>886967
>The trouble is I just don't see how a company keeps the lights on with the freedom to redistribute, which essentially, gives away the store.
They can get paid to work instead of selling copies.
> I want end users to have the freedom to inspect how the code works, and even adjust it for their own needs, but it's too easy for people to get around the inconvenience of having to fund the development. I cannot tell you how many "I fucking love open source" faggots I've met who will espouse all the benefits but shy away when asked do if they money or code to their beloved project.
Anyone saying open source hasn't gone deep enough yet, but I do use my money to fund projects, and I think a patreon-like scheme could work out for the better in the long run. There is a lot of good software that just gets thrown away.
▶ No.887036
>>887023
> with a nice box and instruction manual.
Oh I too miss 1990s products, but we can't have nice things anymore.
▶ No.887039>>887062
▶ No.887062>>887068
>>887039
>I will, but I need to make a bit more money first
▶ No.887068>>887071
>>887062
And therein lies the problem with revolutions, everyone is a temporarily embarrassed bourgeois. It's ok though, life is good as a proprietary software capitalist.
▶ No.887071>>887073
>>887068
Oh, I'm not trying to be bourgeois. I'm trying to get out of debt. I'm working toward 0.
▶ No.887073
>>887071
One thing you might try with your patreon-like site is to offer tech support to paying customers. Since you all such projects are going to essentially become services rather than products.
▶ No.887099>>899552 >>905605
funny seeing these two things come to my attention in the same day
▶ No.887172>>887202 >>901718
>>885687 (OP)
>post examples of diversity in tech
80s home computers ;_;
▶ No.887202
>>887172
Like tears in the rain, anon. Now everything is full of normies, politics, and botnet.
▶ No.887209>>887526 >>899394
>>886967
> The trouble is I just don't see how a company keeps the lights on with the freedom to redistribute, which essentially, gives away the store.
There is no answer to this. It's pretty obvious that if anyone can take your source code and make what is essentially the same product and redistribute it without paying you, then your economic returns from developing said code will be much much lower. Perhaps you can still scrape together some kind of income from it, but misses the point because this income will be much lower than if your source code wasn't covered by an open source license.
Just because free software folks hammer away with terrible economic arguments doesn't mean they actually have a valid point.
▶ No.887211>>887525 >>888961
>>886914
> (read: a living for programmers) with open source software.
Outdated book.
Don't sell software, sell your services.
That's what all megacorps already do except the give software AND services for free and get money via selling DATA.
I'm building my own shit progressively on my side, selling my services to people for them to have an email and FTP server for 1 euros a day (30 euros per month per users and I've got 150 users that I manage with a home server thanks to FTTH).
People don't use loads of resources (especially when you for them to use POP (yeah I force them to use an email client)) for the FTP server now that's where people put GARBAGE especially video content which is 90% of all that is stored.
▶ No.887251
And I thought Terry was a meme.
▶ No.887525
>>887211
>1€ a day
You're trolling right?
Who buys into something that expensive?
>especially video content
and they're encapsulated in folders named "P", right?
▶ No.887526
>>887209
Oh my, I thought I was the lone voice against GPL here. Although I suspect I was just arguing with the same person repeatedly.
▶ No.888960>>899475
>>885899
ok I understand the first two but someone is going to have to explain to me the third pic because I can't code, I just understand the concept of how it works.
▶ No.888961
>>887211
>POP
>FTP
>1 euro a day
You must be a damn good salesman anon.
▶ No.899385
>>885830
Please tell me linux for niggers is still around.
▶ No.899387
>>885899
Please tell me the third pic is satire.
both are shit
▶ No.899394
>>887209
>>886967
The business of proprietary software works on the idea of artificial scarcity. The owners of proprietary software work by artificially controlling the "supply" of their proprietary software by punishing people who copy the proprietary software without proper authority by the owner. The free software movement says that it is wrong for software owners to control users by restricting users in their right to share software. In order for a business to work by selling free software, the business has to be selling something valuable without relying on artificial scarcity. What I recommend is that business change their business to selling programming time, not selling software licenses. This way is only one possible way of selling free software, there are other ways that don't rely on artificial scarcity.
▶ No.899418
>>885687 (OP)
>the right side went autist almost immediately, while the left side kept being diverse before ultimately decaying to a single static circlejerk
▶ No.899429
>>885904
> If one accepts that the lack of women in STEM is indeed a problem -- which it may well be -- this latest information shows that the problem was misdiagnosed as being primarily a bias issue, and thus led to failed solutions.
And a conservative at Google had the audacity to come to this conclusion, and they fired him for it. Honestly, it's like women (Feminists) don't really care about the problems of society, just the social peacocking that comes from saying that you are working on society's problems. The virtue signalling. And thus, the conclusion is that the only way to get women in STEM is to hold their hand, baby them, and show how engineers are the people who create the worlds problems and are the people who will solve the world problems, because they're the only people who really get things done. What bothers me is the intellectual bankruptcy of Progressives.
▶ No.899475
>>888960
Aside from the useless comments, the third one doesn't actually work properly if both numbers are equal and not 5 because it only checks if one is greater than or less than the other, and in the case that they are equal it will return 5 even if the numbers aren't 5 which doesn't make any sense. The proper way to do it would be:
return a > b ? a : b
literally one fucking line. If you wanted to do it without the ternary operator this would be fine too:
if ( a > b ) {
return a;
}
else {
return b;
}
If you want an explanation of the left one, look up fast inverse square root. It's some genius hacky shit to do floating point math with integers for performance.
▶ No.899501>>899537
>>885737
Rwanda is only good because of the Chinese influence.
▶ No.899537
>>899501
lmao it is still not good. like saying for a weather report there will be a cool day in hell.
▶ No.899548
>>885904
What, is it even a thing?
What the fuck?
▶ No.899552
>>887099
Should have used PNG for the second and third images too.
▶ No.899712>>899714
>>885830
> kikepedia it says 30% of them are still illiterate, find me one White country that bad without going back to the middle ages.
England, France, Prussia 1850.
▶ No.899714>>899717
>>899712
As it should be. The masses learning to read and write was a mistake.
▶ No.899717>>899721
>>899714
So Africa is doing it the right way? Which one is it, /pol/?
▶ No.899721>>899723
>>899717
>Anyone that responds must be the same person
I'm not pol, and i'm not op.
▶ No.899723
>>899721
No REAL Feminist.
▶ No.901713>>901765 >>901766
Not exactly /tech/, but I recently bought a powerdrill.
I saw this advertisement a few days later. It's so fucking retarded that I thought I'd post it here.
▶ No.901718
>>887172
>home computers
>this feel
I want to go back.
▶ No.901765
>>901713
It looks like her face, her left and right hand were all photographed separately and photoshopped together
▶ No.901766
>>901713
What's retarded about it? There are two screws for lateral stability, she tacked on one and is finishing the other.
▶ No.901872
>>885830
I can't believe Linux for Niggers exists in ZOG world today. Thank God for the GNAA.
▶ No.904453
>>885888
>Charging money for open source software is hard.
Hahaha, no. Look at the MS Windows Store and weep. Check out "8 zip."
▶ No.904515
>>885830
Isn't Teridax porking a wetback? Well, there you have it
▶ No.905605
>>887099
Chollet is a bit of a leftist fucker who has already tweeted about echo chambers being good to fight (((discrimination))) and wanting a reply-free Twitter because he believes discussions over his tweets are useless.
Keras is godlike tho
▶ No.905606>>905905
▶ No.905668>>905675
>>885687 (OP)
> Why Linux is poised to lead the tech boom
ok
> In AFRICA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
▶ No.905675>>905687
>>905668
it actually makes sense: it's free gibs, it runs on ewaste 90's pentium 3 and 4s even when they're full of sand, and most importantly, you can megaupload a disk image mastered in the west that can be dd'd onto any bootable media and work but people with basic literacy.
we're also leading in african localisations.
▶ No.905687>>905694
>>905675
>megaupload
Why do people use that centralized trash when magnets exist ?.
▶ No.905694
>>905687
magnets are not anonymous
▶ No.905765
This thread is funny you edgy kids.
▶ No.905890
>>885716
>shooping on phone
I never heard of such a thing.
▶ No.905897>>905941
>>885904
Women being too retarded to envision social relevance of well-targeted software. Nothing new.
>That study urged engineering departments to infuse a “feminist care of ethics” into their curricula to help retain women. By doing that, engineering students would be “provided with opportunities to define, address, and apply social responsibility continuously.”
What this means is introduction of political commissars who will be able to terminate funding or employment of projects or people insufficiently dedicated to "ethical software" (which does not mean libre software, but software staffed by women and PoC-s).
▶ No.905905>>905908
>>905606
Boats have girl names, some cars have girl names; what's your problem?
▶ No.905908>>906419
>>905905
but program is not physical…
and it never was done like that before
▶ No.905941
>>885904
>>905897
(Wait... Watch me being too retarded to have noticed that the "programming is not socially responsible enough" excuse is simply women being too retarded to program and, as usual, unjustly shifting the blame on the innocent while virtue-signalling themselves. A woman will never admit her own mental inferiority, so she will unjustly accuse of lack of social resposibility pursuers of the very same technical subjects which she is lazy to pursue and which do in fact improve the society. Vocally blame for one's own faults the group who does make the effort to tangibly improve the world, and signal virtue all the while -- pure feminism.)
▶ No.906419>>906421
▶ No.906421>>906423
>>906419
the name which is impossible to find by doing a web search in less than 10 seconds.
you owe me some keywords.
▶ No.906423>>906433 >>906500
>>906421
An AI made by Microsoft for human interaction.
They released her onto twitter and she became Hitler 2: Terminator Edition in less than 24 hours. It was big news when it happened.
▶ No.906433>>906435 >>906500
>>906423
oh yeah.
well that was a stupid thing to give "her" a gender.
▶ No.906435>>906458
>>906433
I wouldn't say that. Sure, it's pointless for most things computer related, but this was an AI that was specifically designed for human interaction.
In that context, it makes perfect sense. After all, anyone you talk to is a boy or girl, so it'd make sense that they'd want to assign this AI a sex for smoother interaction with the general populace.
▶ No.906458
>>906435
But isn't that bigot? Why won't a big corporation make their AI transgenderfluid instead?
▶ No.906500
>>906433 checked
>>906423
>she became Hitler 2:
You'll never guess who I bumped into...
;^)