Audio test
why were people on earth are so stupid? Why did they behave sometimes good, sometimes really bad ? Can somebody tell us the truth?
Fuck ....
- My Posts
- Chat to Authors
Home
Home
Member since 2017-07-15T03:50:57Z. Last seen 2025-04-09T16:00:01Z.
2754 blog posts. 128 comments.
Fuck ....
Trumps grumbling words when he saw this picture: [Design dialogue]
Trumps grumbling words when he saw this picture: [Design dialogue]
Trumps grumbling words when he saw this picture: [Design dialogue]
119 nbmh 10 hrs 40
Note 1: Updated on August 19th to add clarifications where needed.
Note 2: August 20th 13.00 BST— please don’t turn this into a flamewar. Open Source Software has a >30 year history, and Facebook appears to be leveraging it as an instrument for their private benefit.
Note 3: August 20th 19.00 BST — I’ve received comments from individuals associated with the React universe. Contrary to them, I have no vested interest in one frontend framework or another. I am a backend engineer, not a frontend guy. As a result, I’m neutral and unbiased in this sense. I am not attacking the technology — I’m just providing my view on Facebook’s stance and its impact.
Note 4: August 20th 21.20 BST — Since data speaks louder than words, I compiled a list of ~35 companies along with their most popular Open Source projects (75+ in total), grouped by the licenses they use. Facebook is nearly alone in the use of this license. Here is the article. Judge for yourself.
What’s currently happening in the Open Source community is disheartening. Especially when you realise that many startups and businesses exist thanks to Open Source; as they wouldn’t be viable if they had to pay the prohibitive license fees of proprietary software.
Open Source is about creating communities to build better software together. It should never be used as a marketplace to exchange people’s rights — like Facebook is intending.
Adios, bye bye, they’re gone!
https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933f6928f231dc0918f864/PATENTS This issue was brought to public attention by the Apache Software Foundation.
It doesn’t matter whether the intellectual property is related to the domain you’re using React for, or not.
If you use React, you cannot go against Facebook for any patent they hold. Full period.
In other words: quid pro quo. Facebook, is that what you think Open Source is about?
For the sake of illustration, say you’re a fridge company “Fridgebook Inc.” who markets intelligent fridges. Your fridges have a screen that runs your proprietary application, and you use React for the UI.
Overnight, you hear that Facebook decides to move into the fridge industry, and they’ve announced the worldwide launch of their new product: “FBfridge”, in just 1 week.
In the hypothetical case that Facebook blatantly infringes some of your patents with ‘FBfridge’, what can you do? Well, you cannot sue them immediately. You’re using React on the customer-facing app, remember?
If you sue them before migrating to something else (like vue.js), you will immediately lose the license grant for React, and suddenly you’re in breach yourself, fighting against a potential lawsuit for illegal use of software, from an almost-$500-billion company, all by yourself.
And obviously, you don’t want to interrupt customer service.
So if you want to sue them, or at least hold any leverage for doing so, you will need to find a solution migrate away from React in record time.
That’s quite a pickle you’re in, right? It’s almost an extortionary situation. The solution? Not using React in the first place, and retaining your liberty to assert your rights.
NOTE: I am not an proponent nor an opponent to patents myself. I don’t have a clear stance on the issue. I’m just analysing the give-and-take balance here. The last time I looked, the philosophy of Open Source revolved around communities where talented people contribute their grain of sand to — together — build better software and push tech even further.
That’s the spirit of the Apache Software Foundation, the Linux Foundation, etc. who are key references in the Open Source sphere.
Facebook has released an official explanation, which I’ll summarise for you in a few words:
Facebook receives a large number of meritless patent claims. They waste lots of resources fighting them. So they decided to capitalise on the success of their Open Source projects (like React) to introduce a trojan horse to deter users from filing — theoretically meritless — patent claims against them. They do not reciprocate this restriction. But here is the important part. They claim that every other company that releases Open Source software should do the same.
Unfortunately, this is not going to work, and would eventually lead to a closed-source industry again, for several factors:
It requires consensus across the largest players in the market, who hold real arsenals of patents as leverage against competitors (see image below). Suddenly those arsenals would be valued at $0. Arriving to that consensus is highly improbable. As long as one rogue company doesn’t join, the rest will need to keep “their guards/patent arsenals up”. If all giants agreed to open source under the “BSD + patents” scheme, cross-adoption would grind to a halt. Why? If Google released Project X under “BSD + Patents”, and Amazon really liked it, rather than adopting it and losing their right to ever sue Google for patents, they would go off and build it on their own. That would mean that communities will not form around these products. Communities are the fuel and the incentive for open sourcing products. If there is no chance of igniting a community, there is no reason to open source. Eventually, as the above situation happens over and over again, the giants will stop seeing value in open sourcing their products, and the industry would eventually fall into a closed-source model.
(2012) http://www.droid-life.com/2012/01/24/web-of-tech-patent-lawsuits-infographic/ Patents protect ideas and inventions. In most cases, patent assertion cases are not black or white — win or lose. Infringement evaluation is complex and costly. A lawsuit can cost hundreds of thousands or millions to file and pursue. You might have a 85% confidence that FB violated a patent of yours, but to even pursue it it’s going to cost you a lot of money.
If on top of that, you will need to invest to migrate away onto a different frontend framework first, and make sure that all your customers are using your new product version (what if you’re using React Native? your users may not upgrade the apps at once!), before you can even file the lawsuit, do you think that’s an honest, ethical usage of open source philosophy?
Bottom line:
Open Source is not a “quid pro quo” trade. Open Source is about creating communities to build better software together. It should never be used as a marketplace to exchange rights. If you’re building a startup, I’m assuming you — and your investors — are hoping to land a million-dollar worth exit at some point, right?
You want to keep your door open to all acquirers, especially the large ones: Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc.
These companies likely hold patent arsenals against Facebook — and even if they didn’t — they don’t want to surrender their rights to sue Facebook if the time came.
If your product is built on React, acquiring you means losing these rights, and this is something they are probably not prepared to do.
Basically, potential buyers will not touch you with a ten-foot pole, if buying you means they have to surrender their rights to ever sue Facebook for patent infringement. So if you want to keep your options open…
I particularly like Preact, but I’m not sure if Facebook holds any software patents on the Virtual DOM or the React APIs.
If they did, Preact could be in violation of those patents, so have a look at vue.js, cycle.js, too.
I hope at some point the community can clarify where Preact and Inferno (another light-weight alternative to React) in terms of intellectual property.
203 Antrikshy 10 hrs 220
The open office layout is meant to foster an egalitarian work environment that inspires creativity and spontaneous collaboration among colleagues. Nearly 60 years since their invention, an increasing body of research is beginning to show what many employees already know—open offices often fall short of that ideal.
How we got here
A pair of German brothers developed the original open office in 1958. Gone were managers’ private offices and underlings’ rows of desks. Instead, the new design featured clusters of desks based on departments. By removing physical barriers, the designers were convinced that communication and ideas would flow freely.
Less than a decade later, Herman Miller chief executive Robert Propst invented the cubicle and the walls returned. Propst criticized the open office as a wasteland that “saps vitality, blocks talent, frustrates accomplishment.” He envisioned his cubicles as a way to liberate workers by providing them with privacy and personal space. Unfortunately, most businesses downgraded his roomy, flexible designs to the depressing, but less expensive, warren of beige cubicles that we all know now. (In a 1998 interview, Propst himself accused companies of manipulating his original idea into “hellholes.”)
Today, the open office layout is back with a vengeance. In a 2013 survey by CoreNet Global, an association for corporate real estate managers, more than 80% of respondents said their company had moved toward an open space floor plan. And once again, the backlash has begun. In the last five years, a slew of articles with alarmist titles like “Death To The Open Office Floor Plan!” and “Open-plan offices were devised by Satan in the deepest caverns of hell” have assailed the supposedly progressive design.
So what exactly is wrong with the modern open office layout and how can we create spaces that fulfill the promise of a happy and collaborative workplace?
What isn’t working
By design, colleagues are more accessible in an open office layout. The minute a question pops into your head, you can easily hop over to a co-worker’s desk, or simply swivel your chair to face them. Unfortunately, these well-intentioned intrusions can lead to real problems.
First among those is reduced productivity. According to a study on the cost of interrupted work, a typical office worker is interrupted every 11 minutes. Even worse, people often take up to 25 minutes to refocus on the original task.
And without physical barriers to block it out, noise may be the number one problem with open office plans. Together, loud phone talkers, gossipy co-workers, and that guy chomping on an apple every afternoon can frazzle your auditory system. Researchers have found that the loss of productivity due to noise distraction doubles in open office layouts compared to private offices, and open office noise reduces the ability to recall information, and even to do basic arithmetic.
As anyone who’s had to call their doctor from their desk knows, one of the worst parts of open office layouts is that you can’t control who you hear—or who hears you. In a 2013 study about the privacy-communication trade-off in open offices, 60% of cubicle workers and half of all employees in partitionless offices said the lack of sound privacy was a significant problem.
Along with these frustrations, open offices are actually making people sick. A study on the association between sick days and open office plans found that people working in open offices took 62% more sick days than those in private offices. And remember all those interruptions that workers experience in open offices? In a survey in the International Journal of Stress Management, employees who were frequently interrupted reported 9% higher rates of exhaustion.
The best place to start? Talk to your people. When companies understand what types of environments their employees need to do their best work, they can design better offices to meet these needs. Engineers who spend hours brainstorming in small groups don’t always need the same sorts of dedicated spaces for focused concentration as copy editors or financial analysts. Here are three of the more progressive ways to make your space suit your employees:
Privacy pods. Perhaps the most powerful and popular trend in the move away from open offices is an increased number of small private spaces. These include soundproof glass rooms, which provide quiet refuges, while keeping the airy feel of an open office layout, as well as so-called “phone booths,” closet-sized spaces for focused solo work and confidential meetings between two people.
Zoning. Along with building more private nooks, companies are now replacing traditional conference rooms with a greater range of meeting spaces. These include alcoves where groups of three to four co-workers can gather for a meeting on the fly, and team meeting spaces for five to eight people that can be booked in advance or saved for groups that meet frequently. Businesses can also cut down on unwanted distractions by dividing floor plans into neighborhoods based on expected noise levels and locating chattier departments, such as sales and operations, far away from quieter teams. Using desks, shelving, and large plants to create more labyrinthian configurations reduces auditory and visual distractions as well.
No designated desks. Today’s mobile communication tools allow people to work from anywhere, opening up the entire building as a potential workplace. You may want the buzz of energy that a cafe or atrium can provide. Other times, you may find that setting up shop in the fresh air can lead to fresh perspectives. Moreover, according to the architecture and design firm Gensler, “employers who offer choice in when and where to work have workers who are 12% more satisfied with their jobs and report higher effectiveness scores.”
These kinds of setups—where people have the autonomy to work in the areas that best suit their tasks and temperaments at any given moment—may just be what offices need. With them, companies can finally achieve the freedom and exchange of ideas promised by the original open office of the 1950s. And that can give us something we can all agree on: workplaces that work for all employees.
Create, collaborate and share your work—all in one place
Trumps grumbling words when he saw this picture: [Design dialogue]
Trumps grumbling words when he saw this picture: [Design dialogue]
Trumps grumbling words when he saw this picture: [Design dialogue]
Trumps grumbling words when he saw this picture: [Design dialogue]
Trumps grumbling words when he saw this picture: [Design dialogue]
Hi hope it is okay.
Test
《戰狼2》劇照(互聯網) 吳京的《戰狼二》票房大收，有望突破50億人民幣。據中國傳媒分析，吳京個人有望分得六、七億。銀幕上，吳京赫然是個大英雄，把數百個中國人從外國救回中國，在銀幕上大聲公告天下，「犯我中華者，雖遠必誅！」又強調中國護照之實用性，「中國護照也許不能帶你去世界上的任何地方，但它能把你從世界上任何地方帶回中國。」 接近50億人民幣票房，意味着全中國有接近十分一的人是這部電影的捧場客。看完電影，十分一的中國人亢奮之餘並沒忘記思考，他們發現口中盛讚中國護照一級棒的吳京，其實是嫌棄它的，他本人嫌棄它，他老婆也嫌棄它。據說吳京手持香港護照，吳京的老婆手持美國護照，他們的孩子雖名叫吳所謂，他們對孩子持甚麼護照卻非常地有所謂，所以把孩子生在英國，持英國護照。網民當然不高興了，痛斥他用口愛國。 為了給吳京機會用實際行動愛國，網民呼籲他為四川地震災區捐款1億，或全部的電影收入。結果，吳京捐了100萬。 據說吳京此舉令網民非常不高興，罵他虛偽，口中說愛國，結果，錢不捨得捐，更一早扔了中國護照。這算甚麼愛國呢？
有些事情就是這樣發生了，而且無法回頭。
像林子健：一釘未平一釘又起；民主黨：一鋪清袋；受政治鎮壓的年輕人：一籌莫展；香港：一國一制、一瀉千里、一蹶不振、一言難盡、一息奄奄……；Celine：一夜成名；Celine爸及其經理人公司及宣傳部負責人及集團主席：公關災難，一子錯，滿盤皆落索。
9歲小巨肺與星爸赴美，機場職員只是與同事對講機一句戲言：「係咪借個女上位嗰個？」，就被保安公司解僱。事後才認為投訴「嚴重咗」──講事實也被炒？是因為負責人認為他「在一個小朋友面前羞辱其父親」，上綱上線，很難補鑊，希望保安公司重新考慮重僱該職員？你是誰？誰會聽？就這樣，打爛人家飯碗了。雖然所謂「壞人衣食猶如殺人父母」，言重了，東家不打打西家吧，但小事化大，小錯成罪，小題大做，本來大家已有些反感了，現在更加趕客。
聽說小小搖錢樹將舉行演唱會，其實沒發生機場事件，我們也沒打算一看，因為時間寶貴，更怕到時星爸又父憑女貴，借女上位，跑上台獻藝，自我感覺良好。觀眾一想到有人為此丟了工作，而他們就賺錢開顏荷包腫脹，還看得下去嗎？