Somewhat along that line of thinking, I've wondered if my visual perspective was similar to a 3D game engine camera. And if upon death, it switched to a new entity.
You are the object the camera is bound to, which is elligible for collection when it become unreachable, allowing at some point in time for new allocations to be made with the amount of space you occupied during your life.
Do note that if nothing is done with this space -ever- then your data is not zeroed out, yet you don't exist anymore ?
I got the same notification, US business owner here. In my case, I did not change my address (or anything else). But I suspect their system is regularly looking for work and can't handle DBAs well. To avoid this exact scenario, I was on their butts and uploaded every document I had. Eventually I was escalated and they did something, but I still can't enable their APR option due to some error somewhere. No one seems to know what. I'm very concerned one day I'll wake up to the same fate as the author.
It's a shame because I really love using the Wise website, app, payment system, and even the physical card (esp. in Japan).
Happy to work with anyone over there if they read this and want to dig in.
Was hoping they outlined their approach to handling potentially compromised packages running on dev machines prior to even shipping. That seems like a much harder problem to solve.
I have the previous generation Meta Ray-Ban glasses and they're great, but I wish I could use the underlying tech for... something more useful. It has no API, no extensibility options, nada. I--and my friends--don't use Messenger, Facebook, etc. I fear it'll be the same w/ the Ray-Ban Display, so I doubt I will be upgrading. Such a shame.
In July, packages were loading malicious DLLs (on Windows targets) [1]. It doesn't appear Lavamoat would help in that scenario. Is that right? If so, how do you mitigate this? Run everything in a container?
3. If you don't permit the APIs used for loading DLLs they won't load themselves, so runtime protections are valid too. But I recall the DLLs were loaded in lifecycle script.
Do backups get pruned over time? Is there an expiration? I don't think folks want old lost-key backups sitting around forever for quantum to catch up, right?
"On the other hand, symmetric algorithms such as AES are believed to be immune to Shor. In most cases, the best-known quantum key recovery attack uses
Grover’s algorithm which provides a generic square-root speed-up over classical
exhaustion in terms of the number of queries to the symmetric algorithm. In other
words, Grover would recover the 256-bit key for AES-256 with around 2^128 quantum
queries to AES compared to around 2^256 classical queries for exhaustion.
"
The CLA does not change the copyright owner of the contributed content (https://zed.dev/cla), so I'm confused by the project's comments on copyright reassignment.
Maybe not technically correct but it's still the gist of this line, no?
> Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to Company, and to recipients of software distributed by Company related hereto, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute, Your Contributions and such derivative works (the “Contributor License Grant”).
They are allowed to use your contribution in a derivative work under another license and/or sublicense your contribution.
It's technically not copyright reassignment though.
Yes, you grant the entity you've submitted a contribution to, to use (not own) your contribution in whatever it ends up in. That was the whole point of the developer's contribution right?
The CLA has you granting them a non-open-source license. It permits them to change the Zed license to a proprietary one while still incorporating your contributions. It doesn't assign copyright ownership, but your retaining the ability to release your contribution under a different license later has little practical value.
Isn't that a good thing? As a dev submitting something to them, I want my feature/bugfix to stay with the product.
Are you suggesting that devs should be able to burden the original contribution with conditions, like "they can't use my code without permission 5 years later if you relicense"? That's untenable, isn't it?
I don't know how else you would accept external contributions for software without the grant in the CLA. Perhaps I'm not creative enough!
I submit my code contributions, for free, because I am participating in a collaborative community effort called an Open Source Project. I do not typically contribute to the proprietary codebases of for-profit companies for free; I have a contractor rate for that.
If you say 'that makes it untenable for me to accept your contributions for free, then relicense to proprietary keeping those contributions', well, that's your problem. I don't particularly care about arranging tenable circumstances for you to sell my work under a proprietary license without paying me.
The way you accept external contributions for software without a CLA grant is by not attempting to take the project proprietary, and keeping the open source arrangement forever. I do not see how you could be confused about an open source project staying open source forever while taking open-source-only contributions. That is what almost all open source projects do.
It may not technically reassign copyright, but it grants them permission to do whatever they want with your contributions, which seems pretty equivalent in terms of outcome.
Yes, you grant the entity you've submitted a contribution to, to use (not own) your contribution in whatever it ends up in. That was the whole point of the developer's contribution right?
Without CLA, they can’t sell, for example, the code under different license, or be an exception themselves for the current GPL license requirements. But yeah, there might be some confusion with terms.
Relevant part:
> 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to Company, and to recipients of software distributed by Company related hereto, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute, Your Contributions and such derivative works (the “Contributor License Grant”). Further, to the extent that You participate in any livestream or other collaborative feedback generating session offered by Company, you hereby consent to use of any content shared by you in connection therewith in accordance with the foregoing Contributor License Grant.
reply