You get the starter by leaving flour and water at room temperature for several days. Once the starter is ready, it's just more flour and water, plus additional ingredients (salt, seeds, olive oil, etc) sitting for several hours until it's ready to go in the oven.
I've followed sourdough recipes that were extremely complicated, which required me doing task every few hours for 3 days (so no way to do it if you have a regular job). But at the most basic level sourdough is just a fermented mixture of flour and water that is then cooked.
> and left all their code available, as required by OSS.
IANAL, and I don't have a horse in this race, but I don't think that's required by OSS, not by the spirit of "the law", and (at least) not by GPL, MIT, and other similar mainstream licenses.
The spirit of open source is: you buy (or just download for free) a binary, you get the 4 rights. Whatever happens when the developer/company stops distributing (whether at a cost or free as in beer) that binary is completely outside the scope of the license.
You only have the right to modify if you can access the source.
If you got (a snapshot of) the source along with the binary, that's fine, there's no need to keep hosting the source anywhere.
But if the company said "for source, see: our github", then that github has to stay up/public, for all the people who downloaded the binary a long time ago and are only getting around to exercising their right to modify today.
They don't need to post new versions of their software to it, of course. But they need to continue to make the source available somehow to people who were granted a right that can only be exercised if the source is made available to them.
(IIRC, some very early versions of this required you to send a physical letter to the company to get a copy of the source back on CD. That would be fine too. But they'd also have to advertise this somewhere, e.g. by stubbing the github repo and replacing it with a note that you can do that.)
I used to love HN. Lots of interesting stuff, great articles, novel projects. Now it feels like the frontpage is always around 70% LLM-related stuff. And not breakthrough research or projects, just "new Claude version X" and shit like that. Eternal September I guess?
>They banned the_donald (which, yes, was spammy, but it seemed to be organic
I used to frequent /r/t_d when it was created, before the Republican primaries for the 2016 election. I visited every day because I was absolutely astonished at the gigantic marketing effort behind it. I had never seen anything like that before, and haven't since. It probably had a team of dozens or hundreds of Russians behind it, creating memes and shitposting on a payroll. And it obviously was 100% inorganic.
How sure are we about this? How certain are we that those specific species of mold have a net negative effect, rather than a net positive (like for example mushrooms)? Penicillium grows on stale foods and I doubt eating it would have a net negative effect.
Muchrooms have mycotoxins too. And red meat is a carcinogen. And predator fish have plenty of heavy metals. And the list goes on and on. Yet we eat all those things. Hence the "net positive".
If human knowledge were a pyramid, LLMs just make the pyramid flatter, i.e. shorter, wider at the bottom, and narrower at the tip. It makes Humans dumber.
