I wish Costco were accessible to basically everyone. Among some poorer people I've got to know in the SF Bay Area, having the card and confidence in the means to use it are a mark of the middle class, an aspirational thing.
Membership is an up-front cost. That excludes those who can't part with the cash for no immediate benefit. Depending on what you buy, and what else is available around you, breakeven can take a good part of the year and a sizable number of purchases. Basically, you have to have the cash flow to play with money over time, even over a short timeline like an annual membership cycle.
Costco also sells many if not all items in relatively large quantity, so membership makes more sense for those who can afford to pre-buy and store more than they need. It's the inverse of something like a so-called dollar store, which is too often where poor people get stuck buying smaller than grocery-standard quantities at higher per-unit costs.
Of course, sometimes it makes sense to pool funds, buy together on one membership, and break packs. That costs coordination. Corner stores in poorer areas where I live often do this, with business memberships and resale certificates. At a margin, of course.
I can't pretend to truly understand what it's like not being able to afford Costco. But I've had some opportunities to hear people who see it as out of reach. And to make some trips with "guests".
I practice law in California. I've written terms of service that many, many people here on HN will have agreed to. I read this line and didn't know what it meant, or what it intended to mean.
That said:
> If you are actually a lawyer then it'd be interesting to hear your guidance, which I very much understand is not legal advice. If you're not a lawyer then I'm not.
There's no good way to validate lawyerdom on public social media like HN. And while the average lawyer probably remembers enough from law school or bar exams to know slightly more about Web terms of service and legal drafting than the average person, there's nothing to stop non-lawyers from reading up and learning. Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Law Blog is a great, public source covering cases on ToS and other issues, for example.
The Bar monopolizes representation within legal institutions. Don't cede the law itself to lawyers.
Not Invented Here's long, slow mutagenic march toward full antibiotic resistance continues apace.
There is a fundamental corpo-cognitive dissonance, to boot. If "AI" is cheap enough and good enough to implement security-relevant software from `git init` repeatedly, why isn't it also cheap enough and good enough to assess and approve the security of third-party software at pace with internal adoption? Is there some basis to believe LLMs' leverage on production differs from its leverage on analysis of existing code?
States do have rules against business entity names that mislead about regulated professions. California, for example, prohibits names that suggest an entity is a "professional corporation", a particular type of entity limited to regulated professions, when it is not. But I would be very surprised to learn that "Law" alone has been relegated to lawyer practice in any state of the union. Presumably so would organizations like Bloomberg Law, Westlaw, FindLaw, Free Law Project, Groklaw, etc.
Lawyers don't own law. The law belongs to the public. So says this active attorney member of the State Bar of California, and I'll stand on any law firm's conference table in my boots and say that.
What's difficult really depends on the languages you already know.
In addition to noun inflection, verb aspect, pronunciation stress, and punctuation trouble many native English speakers. That's in addition to all the simple irregularities, like irregular nouns and verbs.
Stress even troubles native speakers. When I lived there, I saw slideshow "where 's the stress?" quizzes used to fill time on screens in taxi buses, waiting rooms, and the like.
My point of view is clear, but what I see is complex. Things seemed simpler back when I believed what Slashdot told me, before I'd spent twenty years getting involved and looking closer.
If you're looking for a seer with a salvation plan---as technology, legal innovation, organizational form---I don't have hope to offer you.
Look at the figureheads of free and open, the "philosophers". The ones we remember succeeded, but not on the terms of the lofty gospels they preached. Very few practical systems are "free". Most competitive software is closed, and sharing code across orgs still sucks much of the time. Linus succeeded, but Linus just wanted to code, get respect, and make good money. Glad he did.
Thinking we'd seen the end of software history got us here. Now I see more willingness to try new things again. They mostly wither or fail, but so did most early attempts at "free". Mutation, selection, adaptation.
Watching what we charitably call this debate flare up yet again gives me an odd mix of feelings. On the one hand, seeing people I've read and listened to for years heave time, attention, and more typing onto this tire fire evokes deep tragedy. On the other hand, I've been there, casting my own vanities to the bonfire, more than a few times. There's comfort in the familiar heat and glow.
I couldn't escape the waste until I was willing to give up the idea of myself as experienced, as an expert. Until I accepted that time served taught me lessons, but didn't bestow authority. Most people coming into this are new. They relearn what's useful and leave the rest behind. That's part of adaptation. I try to see their point of view.
If you ask a newer coder what "open source" means, they might say "like MIT?" or even just "like GitHub?" If you look "open" up in a good thesaurus, "available" is there. The Initiative---really, whoever's on the board now or later---will never own or effectively police the term "open source", much less "open source AI". And nobody claiming "open source" for good or ill will ever summon on themself the kind of attention or cachet that marketing bauble once commanded, no matter what their license says.
As for fellow oldheads, there's no resolving contradictions between ways we learned to frame these issues, decades ago. Can changes to a license be a solution to the funding problem? Can using freedom terms to buttress a business count as truly open? That bizarre conflict of ontologies won't decide where programming goes in the future, if it ever did. I doubt it will even be won or lost. It will just fade away, like the circumstances that started it.
DHH can kick the anthill. The activists can raise their old hue and cry. It's purely elective, demoded dramatics. The real problems of software politics today aren't expressible in either schema. They can even seem tautologically unsolvable. Meanwhile, we've got new aspirational generalities that aren't expressible in the old ways of speaking. "Sustainability", because many doing good aren't doing so well. "Decentralization", because we're all sharecropping on some platform now.
Sometimes I think the best I can do for the younger generations facing today is just to never impose petty trivia about "the movement" ever again. Never deign imply I know what they should consider important. If "free" and "open" meant something to me, let their inheritors tell me what they mean now, in practice. Tell me about the world they built and left for them.
Maybe I don't have to choose. After all, who reads blogs?
In my experience, most people underestimate what's negotiable across the board. Especially those making enough to do most of their business with mass-market operations, like big-box stores and retail service providers, that profit by doing many, many standardized transactions every day, with minimal discretion or even personal involvement.
Below that, lots of haggling and informal trade often help people get by. The costs of that process can be another burden on the poor. At the high end, it's worth involving people with discretion on the sell side. Additionally, sales are often one-off and customized. They may also bundle a bunch of different items and benefits without clear line-item breakdowns.
When hiring a lawyer, I'd nearly always recommend getting terms down in a written and signed engagement letter before work starts. That is very much a negotiation, but it's fine to ask questions and comparison shop.
If you're starting with a call, it's perfectly normal to start by asking whether initial consultation will be billed or not. If it will be, ask the rate. If it won't be, expect some limits on what can be discussed. The best lawyers I know aren't cheap or easily tricked into giving free advice on consultation calls with speedrunners, but they are up-front about what they charge for and how.
Copyright under US law does not require "artistic expression". One of the requirements is called "creativity", but it's very easy to meet. The key phrase is literally "some minimal degree of creativity".
The fundamental policy choice was to protect computer software under intellectual property law, with exclusive rights and market compensation. There were a number of ways that could have been done. Other jurisdictions toyed with new, software-specific laws. But in the end the call in the US was to bring it under existing copyright law with some tweaks to definitions and a small handful of software-specific rules.
Good question. They have a new Juki machine to sew these on directly, but I can't tell whether it will be practical to sew on by hand. I expect most tailor and seamstress shops won't be taking our loans to buy machines just to sew these new zippers in one size.
You've given the argument from fallacy, dismissing an argument without any reference to its content, but only to its conclusion. The existence of bad arguments for a proposition doesn't condemn all other arguments for the same.
The question is whether any particular argument's strong or weak. That's a matter of evidence and reasoning.
Art versus engineering is a very dangerous generalization of the law. There is a creativity requirement for copyrightability, but it's an explicitly low bar. Search query "minimal degree of creativity".
The Supreme Court decision in Oracle v Google skipped over copyrightability and addressed fair use. Fair use is a legal defense, applying only in response to finding infringement, which can only be found if material's copyrightable. So the way the Supreme Court made its decision was weird, but it wasn't about the creativity requirement.
Membership is an up-front cost. That excludes those who can't part with the cash for no immediate benefit. Depending on what you buy, and what else is available around you, breakeven can take a good part of the year and a sizable number of purchases. Basically, you have to have the cash flow to play with money over time, even over a short timeline like an annual membership cycle.
Costco also sells many if not all items in relatively large quantity, so membership makes more sense for those who can afford to pre-buy and store more than they need. It's the inverse of something like a so-called dollar store, which is too often where poor people get stuck buying smaller than grocery-standard quantities at higher per-unit costs.
Of course, sometimes it makes sense to pool funds, buy together on one membership, and break packs. That costs coordination. Corner stores in poorer areas where I live often do this, with business memberships and resale certificates. At a margin, of course.
I can't pretend to truly understand what it's like not being able to afford Costco. But I've had some opportunities to hear people who see it as out of reach. And to make some trips with "guests".