> But the biggest reason why PostgreSQL would not change its license is the disservice it would do to all PostgreSQL users. It takes a long time to build trust in a technology that is often used for the most critical part of an application: storage and retrieval of data
> Changing the license of PostgreSQL would shatter all of the goodwill the project has built up through the past (nearly) 30 years.
I love Postgres and I have no reason to think they would change their license. But IMO any type of "it would be a disservice to users" is useless. This blog post itself is in response to Redis changing their license after 15 years. Surely this would be a disservice to their users?
Businesses have proven time and time again - They will absolutely cause a "disservice to users" or "harm the product" once money is involved.
Again I recognize the way PostgresQL is structured gives me hope this wouldn't happen, but a simple "we wouldn't break user trust" is meaningless.
> NASA, which follows the federal government’s General Schedule pay scales, offers starting salaries along a range that starts at $54,557 for engineers with bachelor’s degrees, $66,731 for master’s degrees and $73,038 for doctorates at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
I know people likely want to join NASA for more than the salary. But that's brutal.
Yep thanks for adding this clarification! Planes swap out last minute for operational reasons all the time, so nothing is guaranteed until you're physically on the plane.
I assume it's similar to the 1 billion row challenge with java - C# and Java have sufficiently advanced VM's that they can compete with C/CPP performance - assuming you go out of your way to optimize for it.
Good point. Maybe it could be a certification test, or maybe some roles wouldn't require it, but I think standardizing software engineering would help the industry by allowing people to focus on the field for their entire lives instead of being sidetracked into management.
All ChatGPT does is predict the most likely next token (with a little sampling on the top most likely tokens).
That's it.
It doesn't lookup whether it wrote it before, it doesn't use an watermarking tools to check, all it does is predict the next most likely token after the tokens you sent it.
It can't even fill in text in the middle, they have to use a special trick where they have a <filltexthere> token.
It's been finetuned/trained with text that it's generated since it's been all over the internet since it's launch. However I highly doubt it's been tuned to detect chatgpt text (instead I imagine they'll make it opt to use a tool and use a watermarking tool when they eventually do implement it)
You just happened to find two cases were it says yes or no.
You should not expect any accuracy from asking it that question.
What the actual crap did Apple do to mess it up so bad then?
Switching between providers on Carrot, Apple Weather often doesn't predict any amount of rain for the entire week, meanwhile I'm soaked in water in a thunderstorm, and NOAA and others predicted rain the entire week (which it did).
> Changing the license of PostgreSQL would shatter all of the goodwill the project has built up through the past (nearly) 30 years.
I love Postgres and I have no reason to think they would change their license. But IMO any type of "it would be a disservice to users" is useless. This blog post itself is in response to Redis changing their license after 15 years. Surely this would be a disservice to their users?
Businesses have proven time and time again - They will absolutely cause a "disservice to users" or "harm the product" once money is involved.
Again I recognize the way PostgresQL is structured gives me hope this wouldn't happen, but a simple "we wouldn't break user trust" is meaningless.