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

I'm unclear on the relationship between Collabora and LibreOffice. Some of the earlier stories on this described TDF as ejecting LibreOffice core developers.

My understanding is that Collabora is an online collaborative office suit based on LibreOffice, with commercial support available and managed cloud hosting. It is also available fully open source and supports self-hosting if you don't want their commercial services. Their developers contribute back to LibreOffice.

What I think of when I think of core developers of an office suite are the people developing the word processor itself and the spreadsheet itself and the other core applications.

Did the ejected developers work on those, or did they only work on things built on top of then or other other non-core things? If they were working on the core applications how many non-Collabora people also work on them?


> Did the ejected developers work on those, or did they only work on things built on top of then or other other non-core things?

Yes, they worked on the core. According to Collabora's stats (from their perspective), they contribute more than half of the documented features from the release notes for LibreOffice 26.2 [1].

Collabora's own online version of LibreOffice lies in another repo [2], which presumably contains code specific to their own product built from LibreOffice. They seem to be moving toward a (maybe soft) fork of LibreOffice, while setting up their own Gerrit instance [3].

[1]: https://www.collaboraonline.com/blog/collabora-productivity-...

[2]: https://github.com/CollaboraOnline/online

[3]: https://gerrit.collaboraoffice.com/plugins/gitiles/core/


How do you use your paper ID to to prove identity or age or citizenship to someone hundreds of kilometers away whom you are conducting an online transaction with?

It's not that important to be able to do that. You have been educated to trade your freedom for that kind of convenience, but it is not necessary.

Proof: things mostly work now without all the surveillance state shenanigans.

More proof: humans have lived full and fulfilling lives without "proving identity or age or citizenship to someone hundreds of kilometers away"


> It's not that important to be able to do that. You have been educated to trade your freedom for that kind of convenience, but it is not necessary.

It's important enough that people do so without any eID, using methods both more invasive and less reliable. Gas bills, document photos, having to take videos and pictures of yourself.

Humans have lived in caves and died of preventable diseases, it doesn't mean it's a better way of living.


> Tesla had that, all Musk had to do was refrain himself from waving his hand around in that certain fashion.

He probably also would have had to refrain from retweeting white nationalists and adding the 100 points emoji that is usually used in that context to mean "100% agreement with the tweet".



Is it accurate to say Tesla democratized EVs? The Roadster came out in 2008 but was over $100k. Over its lifetime they only sold around 2500. It was always a rich person's car.

The first 21st century EV in the US that was aimed at a more mainstream mass market was the Nissan Leaf which launched in late 2010, and in the first year sold 4x as many units Tesla Roadster's lifetime sales.

Tesla took a significant step toward an EV for the less rich with the Model S in 2012. It was still a lot more expensive than a Leaf (about 80%ish more for a base Model S) but way less than the Roadster.

The Leaf was the world's best selling EV in 2011-2014 and 2016, and in 2020 was the first to reach 500k sales.

It wasn't until 2017 with the model 3 that Tesla had a car that, like the Leaf, was priced in the range typical middle class families could afford. That's when they took off, and they caught up and passed Leaf in cumulative sales in early 2021.


The question does indeed remain, but is it a question whose answer matters?

If someone exposes a shady organization why should I care if they did it for ethical reasons or for something less noble like revenge for getting kicked out of that organization?


>> but is it a question whose answer matters?

I think it does? "scummy person loses job, finds another way to cash in" almost seems to becoming a trope? I think it raises questions about what is left _out_ of the book, not just what's in it - are the issues raised the worst/most important, or just the ones that will sell the most books? Did we really need someone to 'tell us' meta/social media can be evil?

There are reasons that (some) criminals are not allowed to profit from books/movies about their crimes.

Anyway, that's just my general feelings about this sort book - I've never heard of the book or the author. And I honestly have no interest in reading it. Based on what I'm reading here - that would basically be rewarding/enriching one of the 'bad actors' ?


Because it doesn’t really target the issue.

Would she go do the same job at Alphabet? X? Probably, if they’d have her.

And the only real thing that’d happened is the government has been used to remove other companies’ competition.

Hooray I guess


> but is it a question whose answer matters

Yes. 100%. And the fact that you're not seeing why it does is confounding to me.

This person has shown that they are willing to harm society (for their own benefit, presumably); by active choice. And, as such, anything they say needs to be viewed through the lens of "is this person lying for their own benefit".

1. Their previous actions do mean that we should not trust what they are saying outright, we should do (more) work verifying the information they provide.

2. Their previous actions to _not_ mean we should avoid holding other accountable when the information provided turns out to be true.

You're asking your question like someone is arguing that this person's information doesn't matter (2); but the point being made is that we should (1).


The site this is on seems to be a bit questionable [1].

[1] https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1064706/ba8e449d224f5067/


> China burns significantly more coal than the USA and Europe combined [...]

And the USA burns more natural gas than China, and the USA burns more oil than China.

All this simply reflects both using the fossil fuels they have the most abundant, reliable, and cheap supply of when they need to burn fossil fuels.


That power use seems reasonably believable. I'm in the Puget Sound area where we get less sunlight than you and our winters are colder, and I just made a graph of my daily electricity use for 2025 [1]. My house is all electric.

I had 219 days with under 24 kWh use, i.e., drawing an average under 1 kW. I got an EV in mid April that year which I charged with the included level 1 charger until getting a 12 kW EVSE installation in I think May. (2024, the last year with no EV charging, had 240 days under 24 kWh).

Almost every day that was over 30 kWh after that was a day when I charged the car which was typically on a Saturday which is also typically when I do laundry which includes about 5 kWh for the clothes dryer.

I was puzzled by the large number of days near or above 50 kWh in February. The end of 2025 doesn't look like it is setting up 2026 for that high a usage. I just checked the weather records and it doesn't look like that was a particularly cold time.

I just made another graph just showing February 2024, 2025, and 2026, and a third showing January of those 3 years, and both show that in 2026 I'm using quite a lot less power (except for the EV charging) than in the prior years.

I've not changed any habits...but in November 2025 I had my house weatherized. They added a lot more insulation under the house (I already had sufficient attic insulation) and did blower tests and sealed everything that was leaking, and it appears this cut energy use by somewhere in the 10-20% range.

It seems then early 2025 appears so high because the end of 2025 is showing the effects of weatherizing.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/QAnOvm7


> As a side note, agriculture uses up lots of water in deserts (more so than people), so it seems like in desert spaces like Idaho, solar would make a lot more sense than agriculture would. And we should move the agriculture to where the water naturally falls from the skies.

The problem is that in many of those places where enough water naturally falls from the sky the soil and/or the weather isn't as good for growing food.

It is generally much easier to move water to a low water place that has great soil and/or weather than it is to move soil or weather to a high water place that is missing good soil or weather, and so here we are.


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

Search: