Wireless water, coming right up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_QfX0SYCE8

In all seriousness, not all particulate sticks to water vapor consistently, sometimes if said particulate is non-polar – the lipid envelope of one SARS-CoV2 comes to mind. It would be more effective to clean the air using a furnace filter taped to a box fan, and it’s only up from there: electrostatic filters or actual air cleaners with a filter.

That said, some console humidifiers push air through essentially a large sponge, and that can already be effective at trapping larger particulate, although not effective for tiny virus-sized particles.

If water vapor was the only thing airborne, then this would be mostly plausible. But the reality in any typical environment is for small particles of dust, soot, microplastics, VOCs, etc to be in the air, in addition to the usual suspects of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc. Some of those will increase the conductance of water, when condensed upon a cool surface. Think of water vapor as a lint filter that floats around the room until it lands on something.

But even in a hermetically sealed environment with only the typical atmospheric mix of oxygen and nitrogen and other trace elemental gases, and then water vapor, there’s still a problem. Air has a conductivity – measured in Siemens, the inverted unit of Ohms which is resistance – of 3-8 x 10^-15, meaning it will not conduct much at all. But compared to condensation upon a PCB in this sealed environment, DI water has a conductance of 5.5 x 10^-6. That is 1,000,000,000x times more conductive, although it’s still a tiny amount.

The reality is that all circuits and electronics leak small currents here and there, even through the air or through their PCB substrates. But the sum total of these leakage and creepage currents will be negligible in all but high-voltage circuits. Though that’s only under the rated environmental conditions.

When air is fully saturated at 100% humidity, some of those currents become noticeable. And for high-voltage switchgear, it can become an issue very quickly. But outright water on most circuits would be disastrous due to arcing or shorting or both, even for low voltage things.

Supposing that any change did materialize, it is a bedrock principle of legal procedure to not change substantially just because the outcomes have noticeable changed. That is to say, if there was anything like a sudden drop in conviction rates, it would be improper for the judges, appellate justices, and defense and prosecuting attorneys to do anything different than what they would have done prior. That’s kinda the point of having a procedure: to follow it and see what happens, accepting the result of turning the cogwheels.

The path to making such changes would have to be done legislatively, since – at least in the USA/California – that’s how changes to the law and civil/criminal procedure are made. Sure, entities like the Judicial Council of California would be making recommendations, but it’s on the Legislature to evaluate the problem and implement any necessary changes.

Law without procedure would just be decrees, wayward and unprincipled.

A lot of my response was already rendered further down the thread. So I’ll only comment on this part:

The objective is not to make the most community friendly licence, it is to pay the people who do the actual work.

If this is the singular or main objective that Futo has, then the basis of OP’s post is entirely dead. The title of the post is very clearly “FUTO License, an alternative to Open Sourd”. But if we take your submission as fact, then there is no comparison whatsoever.

Open Source – whether using OSI’s definition or including FSF’s – has almost never focused on the financial aspect, for better or worse. It’s why commercial entities like Canonical and Red Hat are so rare, because software engineers prefer spending their free time working on great things rather than doing admin.

Futo sounds like they want to be a commercial entity like Red Hat but without the limitations that Open Source or Free Software would impose on them. And they’re welcome to do that, but that endeavor cannot honestly be called comparable to the mostly community-driven projects like BSD, GNU, and Linux, or commercial ventures like RHEL and whatever cloud-thingy that Canonical is selling now.

If the goal is to pay for professional talent, with revenue from B2B sales, and only non-commercial users get a free-bee, then that’s just a shareware company with more steps. Futo trying to dress themselves up like Red Hat remains as disingenuous as when they tried to misinform open-source folks about what open-source is.

I’ll be frank: my interest in software licensing is about finding licenses that strike a sensible balance. It’s about distributing rights and obligations that are equitable and sustainable, while perpetuating software uptake and upkeep. It’s a tough cookie. But I think the Source First license alienates too many potential audiences and its financial model falls apart under any game theory analysis. So I’m not keen on looking down this avenue anymore.

I don’t think that’s the main objective of the FUTO license

That’s fair. I stated my assumption because perhaps they have different objectives. That said, history is quite clear: the greatest success of open-source software development is that it pools efforts from anyone – truly anyone – that is willing and able to put in the time, be it individuals or workers hired by a corporation.

When a license is heralded as an alternative to open-source – as the title of this post does – I think said license needs to be evaluated against the historical success story that open-source projects like Linux, BSD, Blender, etc have demonstrated. Not having the quality of attracting community contributions is a negative, but all licenses have some sort of tradeoff and ultimately that’s what people evaluate when picking a license.

I believe the main objective is to incentivize developers to create great software that respects individual users and fights back against the big tech oligarchy.

This is a laudable goal, though I think the ACSL is more direct at doing the same. It too is a non-open source license, but IMO, I give credit to them for being upfront about that, rather than pointless muddying of the term “open source” that Futo attempted (and ultimately failed at).

More dogmatically, I don’t see how elevating Futo Holdings Inc (or any other company that will manage software licensed under Source First v1.1) into a “benevolent dictator company for life” will fight against the tech oligarchy. It might act as a counter to FAANG specifically, but there’s no guarantee that Futo Holdings doesn’t end up joining their side anyway, or gets bought out by the oligopoly. Which would then put us all worse off in the end.

I don’t quite see the issue here. Can you explain a little more? A third-party would just get a license to sell the software, not to develop it.

Futo Holdings Inc, as the assigned owner of copyright over a software project, reserves the right to license their software however they choose. They can absolutely issue a license to allow a company to privately develop an in-house fork. In copyright speak, the Source First license being “non exclusive” means Futo Holdings can issue someone else a different license. History shows us examples, such as Microsoft’s non-exclusive license of DOS to IBM, which was quite handy since that allowed MS-DOS to be sold with non-IBM PC clones.

And for an example of licensing that allows in-house edits and recompiling, see the source code license offered by AT&T Labs to various universities, which included one UC Berkeley that eventually developed BSD Unix.

Isn’t this currently possible with Open Source™? Like the whole point of Open Source™ is that anyone can use the software for anything, right?

Use, yes. Distribute? Absolutely not with GPL. If ICE wants to create an OS designed to optimally coral unlawfully-detained people in barbaric conditions, then they – just like you, me, the DPRK, or Facebook – can fork Linux and do that. But if ICE then wanted to distribute that CruelOS to another country’s border patrol or secret intelligence or to a private defense firm, they would be obliged by the GPL terms to also offer whatever source code they modified in the Linux kernel to produce CruelOS.

GPL is about making sure the same rights perpetuate for all of time, for all future users, always. If Linus Torvalds turned evil today, the remaining kernel devs would just fork. Whereas Futo Holdings makes no guarantees, and they themselves can turn evil one day. This isn’t even a contrived example. See IBM/Hashicorp’s Terraform and the FOSS OpenTofu that spawned after they tried to change the license.

Google may contribute something to Linux, but my company will never contribute anything. Seems like Google is ok with my company benefiting from their work.

If Google contributed to Linux, it would be GPL licensed. Google knows that this means the playing field will always be level: no one can built and distribute that code in a way that Google couldn’t later benefit from.

Think of it like this: Google buys everyone in the tavern a beer. Everyone’s happy. But part of the deal is that if anyone else buys for themselves a beer, they have to buy for everyone as well. Google is fine with this, because it means that Microsoft wearing the dark suit will also have to pony up if he wants another drink. As will Netflix in the skinny jeans sitting at the booth. As would Ericsson, the Swede dancing jovially to a tune.

With the Source First license, Google has no guarantees that Microsoft won’t use his manly charisma to charm Futo Holdings into giving him a better deal than what Google got. Google is bitter at that prospect, and decides not to buy everyone a beer after all. You, me, and Bob who fell asleep in the corner now need to pay for our own beers, but the bartender won’t give us a group discount anymore. We are now all worse off.

In closing, I had this to say in an earlier post:

Using the tools of the capitalist (copyright and licenses) to wage a battle against a corporation is neither an even fight, nor is it even winnable. Instead, strong communities build up their skills and ties to one another to fight in meaningful ways.

If you’re not building (software) communities, the struggle will not succeed.

Community audits sound great on paper, but it’s something which the FOSS licenses (eg GPL, MIT) also provide. As a practical matter though, auditing has a two-fold objective: 1) identify risks so they can be quantified, and 2) mitigated. For non-commercial users in the community, an audit is high-effort with low return. And further, this license disincentives mitigation even if the audit does turn up something, because of having to sign the copyright away just to submit a bug fix.

For commercial users, auditing is more palatable, being part-and-parcel to risk management. And these commercial operations have the budget to do it, but then this license means the best way to keep improvements out of their nemesis’s hands is to maintain an internal fork that never returns code to the public repo. So commercial users will have to pay more to obtain that sort of license.

All this seems harder than just using MIT code (or even GPL), if such is available. And that’s exactly why I can’t see myself using source-available software in a personal or professional capacity, when there’s any other choice available. It seems worse off for everyone except the owner of the public repo. The license stinks of vendor lock-in, and even if I’m not the one who will pay the rent, I dogmatically will not support rent-seeking like this.

To be abundantly clear, “free software” (aka free as in speech) and “open source” are understood as two different categories, and when software falls into both, would be called Free and Open Source (FOSS).

Wikipedia has this to say:

FOSS stands for “Free and Open Source Software”. There is no one universally agreed-upon definition of FOSS software and various groups maintain approved lists of licenses. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is one such organization keeping a list of open-source licenses.[1] The Free Software Foundation (FSF) maintains a list of what it considers free.[2] FSF’s free software and OSI’s open-source licenses together are called FOSS licenses. There are licenses accepted by the OSI which are not free as per the Free Software Definition. The Open Source Definition allows for further restrictions like price, type of contribution and origin of the contribution

I’m not sure how this license would foster community contributions to the codebase, assuming that was an objective. When I say “contributor” I mean both individuals as well as corporations, in the same way that both might currently contribute to the Linux kernel (GPL) today.

As written, this license grants the user a non-exclusive license for non-commercial use. But that implies that for commercial users – like a corporation – they’ll have to negotiate a separate license, since Futo Holdings Inc would retain the copyright. So if a corporation (or nation state entity) throws enough money at Futo Holdings Inc, they can buy their way into any sort of license terms they want, and the normie user can’t complain.

This is kinda like the principal-agent problem, where the userbase and individual developers now have to trust that Futo Holdings won’t do something reprehensible with the copyrights, be it licensing to certain hostile countries or whatever.

Whereas in the GPL space, individual developers still own their copyright but license their code out under a compatible license. So even Linus Torvalds cannot unilaterally relicense the Linux codebase, because he would need to seek out every copyright owner for every line of code that exists, and some of those people are already dead.

I’m personally not a fan at all of forcing individual contributors from the community into signing over copyright (or major rights thereto) or other stipulations as a condition for making the codebase better, with the exception of an indemnity that the code isn’t stolen or a work-product for hire. I used GPL in the comparison above, but the permissive licenses like MIT also have similar qualities.

EDIT

Thinking about it more, would corporations even want to contribute? Imagine CorpA decides to add code, having already paid for an existing commercial license from Futo Holdings. But then CorpB – who is CorpA’s arch nemesis – pays Futo Holdings an absurd amount of money and in return gets a commercial license that’s equivalent to the WTFPL. That means CorpA’s contributions are available for CorpB to use, but CorpB has zero obligation to ever contribute a line of code which CorpA could later benefit from. It becomes a battle of money, and Futo Holdings sits as the kingmaker. GPL abates this partially, if CorpA is both using and distributing code. But the Source First License v1.1 has zero mitigation for this, apart from “trust me bro”.

TIL

The remarkable thing is that modern chip-and-pin cards do support that sort of “offline” transaction, although fortunately without the carbon copy paper. Specifically, a non-networked credit card terminal can present a transaction to the chip, the chip will cryptographically sign this transaction in a unique way, and the terminal will store it for later submittal to the credit card company, when an online connection is possible.

For a typical “online” transaction when there are no connectivity issues, the third step would send the transaction immediately to the credit card company, so they can have the option of declining the charge. The cryptography is otherwise the same, and it’s why offline transactions are possible.

Some vendors, I think, like SNCF (the national rail operator) in France use offline transactions for their ticket vending machines at rural stations, where there’s no guarantee of being within mobile phone service. The card issuer also usually programs some safeguards to prevent abuse, such as X number of offline and then an online transaction is mandatory, or a limit on the value of purchases (eg $50 max for offline). After all, there cannot be a check against one’s credit limit when offline.

In the USA, it is exceedingly rare for credit cards to be issued as chip-and-pin (but it can be found), and while offline transactions can be performed with chip-and-signature cards, it’s rarely enabled since most/all terminals in the USA have been online since the introduction of electronic credit card processing.

Contactless chip cards might have changed the calculus though, since there is no PIN at all for these transactions. So perhaps issuers might allow a few offline transactions when contactless.

For buses in particular, bear in mind that liquid fuels typically require pumping, which usually uses electricity. So gasoline or diesel pumps might not be available, even if the underground storage tank has fuel. Here in California, a lot of public buses are fueled with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) which in theory could have already been compressed at the depot, but this would only last so long, since it takes energy to run the compressor, assuming the natural gas pipeline is unaffected.

Obviously, battery-electric buses and trolleybuses need electricity. So at this point, perhaps the only bus that would be totally immune is an omnibus, that 19th century people-mover that was drawn by horses. But consider the “emissions” from a horse though…

In all seriousness, the contingency plans for a transit agency will vary depending on where you are in the world. For American transit agencies, most don’t even offer service on Sunday or holidays (very strange in the land of hyper religiousness; no bus to church??) and any labor strikes usually result in every service being closed, sometimes including essential ADA operations. So likely a prolonged outage would affect the buses quickly.

At the very minimum, this type of mail would incur the $0.46 non-machinable surcharge because it’s smaller than one of the minimum USPS dimensions for postcards, namely that one side has to be at least 5 inches (127 mm exact). You may also have issues with it being too floppy for basic handling by the postal carrier, especially if it was previously left in a warm mailbox.

But perhaps a more practical issue may arise first: will stamps even adhere to the wrapping of a Kraft Cheese single? If you cannot affix postage, that’s the most immediate impediment.

no rubber for seals

Modern synthetic rubber would indeed be unavailable, but I vaguely recall reading something to the effect that early steam engines used leather seals or something like that.

But yeah, there’s a lot of missing prerequisites for machinery. Even simple rotary power – like from a windmill or waterwheel – would suffer from being incapable of long distance transmission. Such a limit means the interior lands of a country away from a river or coast would remain unusable for development beyond basic agriculture. No railroads, no A/C, no Phoenix Arizona.

should

when it comes to legality

This needs clarification. Are you asking about the legal status of Character AI’s chatbot, and how its output would be treated w.r.t. to intellectual property rights? Or about the ethical or moral questions raised by machine-generated content, and whether society or law should adapt to answer those questions?

The former is an objective inquiry, which can be answered based on the current laws for a given jurisdiction. The latter is an open-ended, subjective question for which there is no settled consensus, let alone a firm answer one way or another.

I decline to answer the latter, but I think there’s only one answer for the objective law question. IANAL, but existing fanfiction does not imbue its author with rights over characters from another author, at least in the USA. But fanfiction authors do retain copyright over their own contributions.

So if an author writes about the 1920s Mickey Mouse character (now in public domain) but set in a gay space communist utopia, the plot of that novel would be the author’s intellectual property. But not the character itself, which remains public domain. However, character development that happens would be the author’s property, insofar as such traits didn’t exist before.

What aspects of this situation do you envision would require different treatment just because it’s the output from a chatbot? Barring specific language in a Terms of Use agreement that transfers ownership to the parent company of Character AI chatbot, machines – and crested macaques – are not eligible to own intellectual property. The author would be the human being which set into motion the conditions for the machine to produce a particular output.

In conventional writing, an author does not relinquish ownership to Xerox Corporation just because the final manuscript was printed using a Xerox-made printer. But just because an author uses a machine to help produce a work, that will not excuse plagiarism or intellectual property violations, which will accrue against the human being commiting that act.

I express no opinion on whether intellectual property is still a net positive for society, or not. But I will very clearly lay out the difference between objective conclusions from the law as-written, versus any subjective opinions on how the law ought to be reformed, if at all. After all, what is not understood cannot be effectively changed.

There’s at least !bestoflemmy@lemmy.world

I should clarify that my original comment – foot traffic keeps paths in decent shape – was in answer to the OP’s titular question, about why vegetation doesn’t grow atop the intended walking/hiking trail. But you’re right that traffic will cause other impacts, even if plantlife isn’t getting in the way.

I’m in 100% agreement that for trail upkeep, people have to be mindful how they step. The advisories here in California focus on not eroding the edges of the trail, such as by walking around muddy areas, which would only make the restoration work harder and damage more of the adjacent environment. We have a lot of “stay on trail” signs. We advise people to either be prepared to go right through the mud – only worsens an existing hole – or don’t walk that trail at all.

Obligatory reference to desire paths: !desire_paths@sh.itjust.works

Traffic – under foot or otherwise – is one way to keep a path in decent shape

My understanding is that the de minimis tariff treatment for import shipments is different than the duty-free personal exemptions that apply for “accompanied baggage” when re-entering the USA and has the imported items with them.

Assuming this CBP page is accurate, the $800 exemption is one of three possible exemptions that can still apply. The $1600 exemption only applies when returning with stuff from Guam, American Samoa, or USVI, and the $800 can only be claimed every 30 day. The last resort is the $200 exemption, which is always available, and ostensibly is there to allow Americans living near Canada or Mexico to not have to deal with border taxation just because they had to buy lunch or gasoline during day trips.

Yep, sometimes acetone will do that. But other times, another solvent like gasoline might do the trick. Or maybe a heat gun.

I see it as an engineering challenge, how to best remove intrusive logos from stuff. IMO, all this is part-and-parcel to the second part of: reduce, reuse, recycle. Also, sometimes certain logos can be clipped in very creative ways haha

It doesn’t work for backpacks that might have the company name embroidered on, but for cheaper print-on-demand items like hats and water bottles, acetone will cause the logo to dissolve or shift.

That says, I have personally removed embroidered logos from clothes before, when the product itself is excellent but aesthetically ruined by a logo. It’s very finnicky work with a seam ripper, and has gained me a lot of nice thrift store finds.