Literally the two sentences immediately following that quote are "For now. As we continue down this path, however, humans will not be able to stay in the loop and such guarantees will be intractable."
Personally I find the entire tone of the article to be creepy and disturbing.
I assume other processes running as the same user can still freely read the environment, for example using `ps -Eww` on Mac or inspecting /proc on Linux, right? If so, that's an easy way for a rogue process to bypass the local encrypted vault entirely.
Yes. Every clone of this idea does the same thing and a new one pops up every week. When I try to point out that the secrets should be exposed through file namespaces instead of ENV vars, the amount of hostility is shocking.
Oh you're right! I was looking at the last documentation update timestamp, but the original release was 2006. That makes a lot more sense than Itanium support in 2021.
That makes me wonder, are there any major examples of this kind of abrupt pivot actually succeeding?
Nintendo was a much more gradual product shift that makes sense in retrospect: playing cards -> tabletop games and toys -> video games.
Or another gradual example was Tandy Corporation, which went from making leather crafts -> general crafting/DIY to electronics crafting -> Radio Shack and Tandy computers. That one's funny because the original leather business was spun out and still exists.
But abruptly going from shoes to AI datacenters, or iced tea to blockchain, etc I really wonder if there's any non-scam precedent of that abrupt shift actually working for a major known brand?
Yeah these are definitely some good examples of startups doing major abrupt pivots after a few years. But I was hoping to figure out if there were any successful examples of established, well-known brands doing it. (For comparison to the original topic, Allbirds was founded 11 years ago and is post-IPO.)
Samsung started as a trading company for dried fish, noodles and groceries. Now it does many things as a conglomerate but it’s mostly known as an electronics company.
Toyota started as a company to produce looms. It’s now mostly known as an automotive company.
It's SaaS though. You don't have access to the binary to decompile. There's only so much you can reverse-engineer through public URLs and APIs, especially if the SaaS uses any form of automatic detection of bot traffic.
Thanks you. This is what the parent post was trying to say. Don't know why it is down-voted. AI or not, if the API end points are well secured, for example use uuid-v7, then their is little that the ai can gain from just these points.
If I understand correctly, their primary product is SaaS, and their non-DIY self-host edition is an enterprise product. So your neighbor wouldn't have access to the binaries to begin with.
It's not a "project" though; the business Cal.com Inc raised that VC money. Their open source repo did not raise the money.
Did they ever promise to keep their codebase FOSS forever, in a way that differs from what they're already doing over at cal.diy? If not, I don't see why it would be reasonable to expect them to spend a huge amount of money re-scanning on every single commit/deploy in order to keep their non-"DIY" product open source.
Your article completely ignores operational considerations: backups, schema changes, replication/HA. As well as security, i.e. your application has full permissions to completely destroy your data file.
Regardless of whether most apps have enough requests per second to "need" a database for performance reasons, these are extremely important topics for any app used by a real business.
Oh how random, that's near where I grew up, and almost certainly in the school district I went to.
As for why the sidewalk abruptly ends, normally it's due to a border between municipalities: some of the municipalities in the area don't have sidewalks at all, and confusingly several of them have Lansdale postal addresses despite not actually being part of Lansdale proper (which does have sidewalks).
But in this specific case I think it's Upper Gwynedd Township on both sides of the bridge, so who knows.
I haven't lived there in decades, but sorry about your ticket in any case!
One other ironic wrinkle: iirc students have to walk to school if there's a route under 1 mile long with continuous sidewalk coverage. And that spot where you got ticketed is right about a mile from the high school. So if that bridge actually had sidewalks, maybe there would be no need for a bus stop in that location where you got the ticket.
> if one offers something for free under a GPL or MIT license, claiming to do so for the betterment of humanity, only to later retract it
I would wager that an overwhelming majority of people who choose FOSS licenses do so without ever making any grandiose claims about the betterment of humanity. Yet upon any suggestion of a license change, if the project is popular, they get attacked for being a lying scheming rug-puller all the same.
> that person is an entitled liar who released proprietary software while using openness and generosity as a marketing strategy
Why do you automatically assume they're a liar, and not just someone whose circumstances or opinions changed over time? Or just responding to changes in the competitive landscape or business cycle?
If you release FOSS software, it seems your only socially acceptable options are to keep future versions FOSS forever, or abandon the project entirely if/when your circumstances no longer permit FOSS development. How is that state of affairs beneficial to anyone?
> Proprietary software is fine.
I agree, but our industry also has a vocal minority of open source purists, who treat anything using non-OSI-approved licenses as toxic waste -- even software using a quite generous source-available license.
For B2C software, that situation is manageable: the purists simply won't touch the software, and will loudly pan it on forums like HN, but plenty of others will try it if it's useful.
But for B2B software, it's more problematic, since there are enough open source purists out there that most tech companies employ at least a few, influencing corporate policy about acceptable licenses. If a new B2B software product has no OSI-approved FOSS edition at all, the purists tend to majorly tank adoption, which hugely impacts the business viability of the product.
So if you're bootstrapping a new B2B infrastructure product that doesn't lend itself to SaaS, what license do you pick? If you go FOSS, you severely limit the economic viability of your own work. Or if you go non-FOSS, you severely limit adoption, which then has the same outcome.
> That comes from some combination of the project looking not worth a cent, probably not working (at least not for the use case intended), payments being a big step
If it was just about money/payments, then non-OSI "source available" licenses would be far more popular, especially ones that allow the software to be used free/gratis for all situations that don't directly compete with the software creator. Yet instead the widespread attitude towards these licenses seems to be far more mixed. How do you explain that phenomenon?
Personally I find the entire tone of the article to be creepy and disturbing.
reply