> Are they really "so complicated", or is it just a large amount of options, many of which might actually be ignorable for the task you're doing, that contribute to such an impression of complexity?
Apache's library called it HSSF, Horrible Spreadsheet Format. You make the call.
'If you are building from source then you get no support and must work within the restrictions specified of the
fair source licence (see LICENSE.txt for details). To purchase support see
https://searchcode.com/product/#downloadlinks'
And what about:
'Use of this software is governed by the Fair Source License included in the LICENSE.TXT file'
No period there at the end, but that seems to indicate to use the LICENSE.TXT.
And then, even worse:
'In order to deal with the case of my death or this software becoming abandoned it has a time-bomb where the licence will change exactly 3 years after the publish date of a version release. This means that if version 1.0.0 was released on 1 July 2010 then it can be taken using the listed alternate licence on 2 July 2013. This licence, version and time is all specified below.'
There is no definition of what 'software becoming abandoned' (Which 'software'? What does 'abandoned' mean?). There is no definition of what 'it can be taken' means. The example date is one day more than three years and the dates given as examples could confuse the date intended for expiry. There is no definition of what should be used as the 'publish date of a version release'.
While these things may seem common sense to a developer, they should have a clear legal interpretation.
Clearly shows that it is released under the Fair Source License, version 0.9 with no mention of license termination and restricted rights. It is NOT free.
'After the following date 27-August-2019 you may choose to use this software, version "1.2.3" or "1.2.4" under the GNU General Public License Version 3 with terms specified at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt'
This is so wrong. Not that it is GPL, but this both contradicts the license and states that you "may choose to use this software..." under the GNU GPLv3. Also, the missing comma after "1.2.4" is a mistake in grammar.
I'd say, as-is, you should consider this licensing unreliable. Yes, he posted in his blog stating his intention, but as it is now, it would appear that if a ruling had to be made on the actual license, it could very well be that the only valid license is the one in LICENSE.txt.
Since that is unclear, though, if I were a user and cared about the license, I'd get a good lawyer to figure this out before making any assumptions.
And, I would suggest that he get a lawyer to help craft the required changes to his license.
> This feels like the most important US presidential election I've ever witnessed, and I want to do whatever I can to make sure we're all involved.
Same for me. It's also the nuttiest US presidential election I've ever witnessed.
According to HuffPost Pollster, Trump has an unfavorable rating of 58%, Clinton has an unfavorable rating of 56%.
With numbers like that, neither should be in the race, imo.
But, the only other two candidates either risk Clinton being elected and don't know what/where Aleppo is (Gary Johnson) or are wanted on trespassing and mischief charges and risk Trump getting elected (Jill Stein).
I'm an introvert and tend toward reclusion, but still think that reclusion can be bad. We should interact with others to help them and to be helped IRL.
First, I learned a lot from this. But, here's some light criticism:
1. Joel saying "I didn't understand that question" and then moving on might have been succinct and practical, but it was just not a good reflection of him.
2. He acts like R1C1 mode is the only way handle relative references for the first 13 minutes. One of the first things I learned in Excel was $ to pin a reference to row or column in what he calls "baby mode". I think it's not babyish to use $ which is more succinct; you can edit the formula and see the calculated value right away. It seemed like he waited a long time to talk about that.
3. "Almost none of which you can do in Google spreadsheets" at 18:15. Sounds so pro-Microsoft, right? Yet, if you look, he's obviously using OS X, which is surprising to me, because MS Office has historically sucked on OS X compared to its Windows counterpart, and it's been incomplete: https://9to5mac.com/2016/01/21/windows-mac-ipad-microsoft-of... even though, yes, it's a lot better than it used to be. Also, Google docs is free.
> there will never be another Rock genre in terms of popularity
That is purely based on your recent experience, and I believe it to be short-sighted.
As an example, Classical Period music was popular roughly between 1730 and 1820. That's 90 years- in comparison, Rock is only about 61 years old.
Rock will no doubt continue to influence future musicians even when it is no longer the predominant form of popular music. But, assuming history repeats itself, which it tends to do, Rock probably won't be the last popular form of music spanning several decades.
And I believe what will replace Rock will be some form of electronic pop.
I wonder how many rationalists on HN this post will piss off before it falls off the main page.
"Reality", "science", "fact", and "logic": these are all arbitrary concepts and disciplines that are stuck in a limited worldview. There is no true objectivity we can experience as humans.
Just because we don't experience something or it doesn't fit with what we consider rational thought, it doesn't mean that that thing cannot exist.
However, we learn this truth from science itself- in seeing how other living things experience life and react and how it is so different than how we experience it- how we aren't made to be objective.
The means of showing us truth we've relied on is flawed. At this point, the rationalist understands why Plato divides into thing and form- because form is the only ideal that is an anchor when you realize that our experience is unreliable:
https://www.northampton.edu/Documents/Subsites/HaroldWeiss/I...
But, then when you accept form as the ideal and reject things, you have rejected everything we have to understand form. So, you fail to have anything dependably rational left.
What would be more impressive to me and practical would be spending time contributing to the Linux kernel. That is something that companies would more likely be interested in.
No, but I think we will eventually go to peer-based mesh networks with smarter clients. The reasons are:
1. Mobile devices keep getting faster and have more memory- they aren't and shouldn't be dumbed-down clients peddled by telecom companies to get them to buy their services.
2. People don't want to pay for things they shouldn't have to, like interconnectivity, if there are enough devices for everyone to pull off the network without help.