Implicit intents do not name a specific component, but instead declare a general action to perform, which allows a component from another app to handle it. For example, if you want to show the user a location on a map, you can use an implicit intent to request that another capable app show a specified location on a map.

Eternal September or the September that never ended[1] is Usenet slang for a period beginning in September 1993,[2][3] the month that Internet service provider America Online (AOL) began offering Usenet access to its many users, overwhelming the existing culture for online forums.

les objectifs à atteindre ne sont pas codés au départ

Open Education, yes, but also Open Access, Open Science, Open Data, Open Source, Open Government, etc.

This gives them a slight edge but that’s nothing substantial because those fixes eventually reach Ubuntu.

But all of these attempts misunderstand why the Open Source ecosystem is successful as a whole. The ecosystem of fairly standard licenses provides a level playing field that allows collaboration with low friction, and produces massive value for everyone involved – both to those that contribute and to those that don't. It is not without problems (there are many essential but unsexy projects that are struggling with funding), but introducing more friction won't improve the success of this ecosystem – it will just lead to some parts of the ecosystem to break off.

Part of me thinks that open source can be more rewarding to the creators/contributors. But maybe the real contribution is the permanent addition to the tools available to humanity, and if you have the wits, you can make a decent business out of it without tainting open source.

Selling proprietary software is difficult when there is so much gratis Open Source software around.

For a sufficiently successful and industry-relevant open source project, it's possible for the main developers to earn a living e.g. by selling related consulting services.

It turns out that creating and using Free Software is not just good to individuals, but for businesses as well, for example by building upon publicly available components and by collaborating shared software. The term Open Source is a business-friendly rebranding of the Free Software concept. This line of thought was also widely successful, e.g. Firefox/Mozilla was an open sourcing of Netscape software.

(optional googlesheet & zapier integration for any other email marketing software)

This is a store we can’t audit, which contains software nobody can patch. If we can’t fix or modify software, open-source or not, it provides the same limitations as proprietary software.

Although it is open-source, Snap on the other hand, only works with the Ubuntu Store. Nobody knows how to make a Snap Store and nobody can. The Snap client is designed to work with only one source, following a protocol which isn’t open, and using only one authentication system. Snapd is nothing on its own, it can only work with the Ubuntu Store.

Good [open] scientific practice

At work, I cannot maintain this project. At home, I'd rather spend time with my children and on projects that I'm currently passionate about.

unlike a traditional computer, a blockchain computer can offer strong trust guarantees, rooted in the mathematical and game-theoretic properties of the system. A user or developer can trust that a piece of code running on a blockchain computer will continue to behave as designed, even if individual participants in the network change their motivations or try to subvert the system. This means that the control of a blockchain computer can be placed in the hands of a community

Augmented Steam is an open source project. You can verify the code for yourself, help us improve it or create your very own version.

👍 Upvote issue #204 if you want to see it land faster.

Would you work for free? It is a simple but loaded question that requires additional context. Is it working to help a friend do something? Is it work that you would enjoy? Does the act of working for free give you some level of satisfaction? Your gut reaction to the question may have been a hearty, “No,” but many people volunteer for a variety of things all the time, so people will work for free when there is something in it they enjoy.

Open source is fundamentally good with the transparency and flexibility it brings; however, as our reliance on it goes up, the overall investment back into the ecosystem has not. It can be easy to take for granted the time and effort many developers put into open source projects. Yet it is with their time and effort that we often save our own.

These developers are not greedy or selfish for wanting funding for their projects. To the contrary, they want funding to keep the project alive. A person has to eat, after all. Funding the project is a means of changing the maintainer’s timeshare—allowing themselves to put time into the project that otherwise would be used for other employment. There is only so much time in a day that a person can otherwise give.

Funding should not be a struggle for open source projects. We embrace open source into our codebases frequently but have yet to fully embrace the idea that funding it actually helps us too. The bug fixes and feature requests need to be implemented, tested, and reviewed by someone who themselves can only put so much time into the project.

Chromium is a very popular web browser, the fully open source counterpart to Google Chrome.

I don’t think he implies that, he didn’t mentioned FOSS or non-FOSS. Third party doesn’t refer to licensing, only to who provides it.

wouldn’t that « lesser » the FOSS effort towards desktop app’s ?

Snap gets rid of dependency mess. Good. Snap offers in one place FOSS and proprietary app’s. Here I am suspicious. It may be an advantage for a commercial app-store and for some users. But this advantage may lead to loss of comfort and flexibility for the many users that rely first on FOSS.

If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.

Ways will be found to make communities sustainable,

Associação de Direitos Reprográficos

Nonethel ess, scholars have begun to iden-tify procedures that can potentially mitigate political sectarianism. These in clude efforts to help Americans comprehend opposing partisans regardless of their level of agree-ment, such as by focusing on commonalities rather than differences (e.g., “we’re all Amer-icans”; SM) or communicating in the moral language of the other side (e.g., when liberals frame the consequences of climate change in terms of sanctity violations; SM).

Is motivated partisan cognition bipartisan?The extent to which each side exhibits motivated partisan (or biased) cognition is a focus of ongoing debate. Some scholars argue for symmetry (SM). For example, a recent meta-analysis demonstrates equivalent levels of motivated partisan cognition across 51 experiments investigating the tenden cy to evaluate otherwise identical in-formation more favorably when it supports versus challenges one’s political beliefs or allegiances (14). In an illu strative experiment, liberals and conservatives viewed a film clip of a political demonstration in which protestors clashed with police. Despite view-ing the identical clip, liberals rated the protesters as more violent when they believed it was an anti-abortion protest (a conservative cause) rather than a gay-rights protest (a liberal cause), whereas conservatives exhibited the opposite pattern (SM). Other scholars argue for asymmetry. For example, some evidence suggests that, relative to Democrats, Republicans have a higher need for order and greater trust in their gut-level intuitions. Such tendencies appear to motivate them to favor explana-tions that are straightforward and intuitive rather than complex and abstract, even when the latter types of explanation might be more accurate (15) (SM). Such findings are representative of the existing evidence, but conclusions remain tentative.

Interestingly, the employers were aware of the need to avoid including specific technologies or competencies that were narrowly identifying the company's niche skills. By generating broader competency statements, they were also creating more sustainable position descriptions that could guide the company into the future, beyond the current specific technology or minute skill needs

You can also purchase a Nextcould hosting service, which on one hand may not seem any different from giving your photos over to Google or Apple, but there's a significant difference: Nextcloud storage is demonstrably encrypted, with source code to prove it.

Following the model of open-source software, we can enter our ideas and expressions into public discourse

Our team is building open source community tools and Svelte fits our identity as an independent labor of love with an organic community.

With some frameworks, you may find your needs at odds with the enterprise-level goals of a megacorp owner, and you may both benefit and sometimes suffer from their web-scale engineering. Svelte’s future does not depend on the continued delivery of business value to one company, and its direction is shaped in public by volunteers.

Better community building: At the moment, MDN content edits are published instantly, and then reverted if they are not suitable. This is really bad for community relations. With a PR model, we can review edits and provide feedback, actually having conversations with contributors, building relationships with them, and helping them learn.

The settlement of the res-titution claims made by the Italian government against the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Getty Museum in Malibu, and the Cleveland Museum of Art and the return to Italy of looted antiquities raise ques-tions about the integrity of some museum directors and trustees – well-informed people whom one would expect to be the guardians and defenders of the past, not par-ticipants in the commercial processes which lead to its destruction.

There are actually 3 other libraries that implements material in svelte, i hope this to become the community favorite because using MDC underneath it implements correctly Material guidelines.

If you continue to have trouble though, feel free to open a new issue so we can keep this one focused on the theme color palette documentation problem. 1 Pick your reaction

The ultimate goal of the Open Library is to make all the published works of humankind available to everyone in the world. While large in scope and ambition, this goal is within our grasp.

If you are a developer and would like to fork, modify and/or contribute to this extesion, then this section is for you.

It is open to the community to help set its direction.

In Rust, we use the "No New Rationale" rule, which says that the decision to merge (or not merge) an RFC is based only on rationale that was presented and debated in public. This avoids accidents where the community feels blindsided by a decision.

I'd like to go with an RFC-based governance model (similar to Rust, Ember or Swift) that looks something like this: new features go through a public RFC that describes the motivation for the change, a detailed implementation description, a description on how to document or teach the change (for kpm, that would roughly be focused around how it affected the usual workflows), any drawbacks or alternatives, and any open questions that should be addressed before merging. the change is discussed until all of the relevant arguments have been debated and the arguments are starting to become repetitive (they "reach a steady state") the RFC goes into "final comment period", allowing people who weren't paying close attention to every proposal to have a chance to weigh in with new arguments. assuming no new arguments are presented, the RFC is merged by consensus of the core team and the feature is implemented. All changes, regardless of their source, go through this process, giving active community members who aren't on the core team an opportunity to participate directly in the future direction of the project. (both because of proposals they submit and ones from the core team that they contribute to)

So I propose having the repo in place, and using it for targeted proposals where we really want feedback from early users, and hold off formalising anything more until early next year, as you said.

Express - 19 $ 🏃‍♀️ Skip the Review Queue 🕒 Published in 3 days 💌 Full Customer Support 💚 Support the team

Tunnelgram is fully open source (server and client) and uses the Tunnelwire Encryption Scheme, so you can see all of the code it's built on.

recently released NIH Open Citation Collection,

Fifth, and most challenging, we can work to reverse the divergence between the centre and the periphery. The previous four elements would help with this. But greater policy efforts are needed to give regions, where possible, a critical mass of knowledge jobs so they can connect with the leading economic activity in national centres.

These changes are not, on the whole, the fault of globalisation, that scapegoat of the populist insurgency, but of technology-driven changes combined with policies that have reinforced the underlying forces of divergence.

As a result, it is no longer open source.

I’d still be interested in Svelte making things easier so I’ve opened a feature request for Reactive statement cleanup functions.

from tuka al-salani 60:48 and well actually it is a question but it's something that will probably 60:52 is out beyond our scope here but how would 60:56 social annotation be used as a research tool so not research into it but how 61:00 would we use it as a research tool

However, a healthy news ecosystem doesn’t just require a thriving free press, it also needs a diversity of curators, newsletters and content discovery options that enable the weird and wonderful to surface. We want to use Nuzzel as a test kitchen to see what models works for curators as well as content creators. The simple goal is a sustainable open web where the goals of creators, curators and consumers are aligned around the best possible experience.

to what extent is there value in breaking down the wall between blogging and wiki, and to what extent are these two technologies best left to do what they do best?

Should Wikity follow the wiki tradition of supplying editable source to collaborators? Or the web syndication model of supplying encoded content. (Here, actually, I come down rather firmly on the source side of the equation — encoded content is a model suited for readers, not co-authors).

being able to follow links to “follow a conversation” that is threaded on Twitter.

High-level bodies such as the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the European Commission have called for science to become more open and endorsed a set of data-management standards known as the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) principles.

The plan is to use the site to share surveys, interviews, and researcher notes.

academia is built on the premise (IMHO) of getting a good idea, parlaying that into a job and tenure, and waiting for death. I’ve had a lot of colleagues and acquaintances ask why I would bother blogging. Ask why I share all of this content online. Ask why I’m not afraid that someone is going to steal my ideas.

Our work, said Campbell, is not to graduate more students, but to enable students to graduate themselves.

working in public, and asking students to work in public, is fraught with dangers and challenges.

If OER is free, what hidden costs exist in its production? Making these textbooks is taking me a chunk of time in the off-season.  Thanks to my salaried position, I feel ok about putting in the overtime, but it’s a privilege my colleagues who teach under year-to-year part-time non-contracts can’t afford. Who should be funding OER creation? Institutions? Students? For-profit start-ups? How will you invest time in this project without obscuring the true costs of academic labor? Right now, we pass the corruptly high cost of academic publishing onto the backs of academia’s most vulnerable members: students. But as OER gains steam, we need to come up with funding models that don’t land us back in the same quagmire of exploitation that we were trying to get out of.

Most of the actual texts in the Heath were public domain texts, freely available and not under any copyright restrictions.  As the Heath produced new editions (of literature from roughly 1400-1800!), forcing students to buy new textbooks or be irritatingly out of sync with page numbers, and as students turned to rental markets that necessitated them giving their books back at the end of the semester, I began to look in earnest for an alternative.

Paquette outlines 3 sets of foundational values of open pedagogy, namely:  autonomy and interdependence; freedom and responsibility; democracy and participation.

open pedagogy is currently a sort of proxy for the use and creation of open educational resources as opposed to being tied to a broader pedagogical objective.

And to Vivian Rolfe’s point made at OpenEd 16, are we are paying enough attention to voices of the past?

us ed tech folks will recognize some of the themes – individualized learning, learner choice, self-direction, – to name a few.

Because students know their work will be used both by their peers and potentially by future generations of students, they invest in this work at a different level.

Free to accessFree to reuseFree to reviseFree to remixFree to redistributeThe question becomes, then, what is the relationship between these additional capabilities and what we know about effective teaching and learning? How can we extend, revise, and remix our pedagogy based on these additional capabilities?

They are allowed to operate independently and explore with personal freedom.

The current buzz about open pedagogy got kick-started in David Wiley’s 2013 blog post. Wiley defined open pedagogy as any approach or technique that would not be possible without the “5Rs” (at the time listed as the “4Rs plus free to access”: free to access, free to reuse, free to revise, free to remix, free to redistribute – the right to retain came later…) of OER.

Commonplace books, during the Renaissance, were used to enhance the memory. Yeo writes, This reflected the ancient Greek and Roman heritage. In his Topica, Aristotle formulated a doctrine of ‘places’ (topoi or loci) that incorporated his ten categories. A link was soon drawn between this doctrine of ‘places’ (which were, for Aristotle, ‘seats of arguments’, not quotations from authors) and the art of memory. Cicero built on this in De Oratore, explaining that ‘it is chiefly order that gives distinctness to memory’; and Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria became an influential formulation. This stress on order and sequence was the crux of what came to be known as ‘topical memory’, cultivated by mnemonic techniques (‘memoria technica’) involving the association of ideas with visual images. These ideas, forms of argument, or literary tropes were ‘placed’ in the memory, conceived in spatial terms as a building, a beehive, or a set of pigeon holes. This imagined space was then searched for the images and ideas it contained…. In the ancient world, the practical application of this art was training in oratory; yet Cicero stressed that the good orator needed knowledge, not just rhetorical skill, so that memory had to be trained to store and retrieve illustrations and arguments of various kinds. Although Erasmus distrusted the mnemonic arts, like all the leading Renaissance humanists, he advocated the keeping of commonplace books as an aid to memory.

Ideas on how to analyze and predict network behavior have been informed by concepts arising from the computational and social sciences, which are themselves increasingly concerned with understanding networks. The interesting thing about these ideas is that they work at scales ranging from the molecular to the population level.

Is it possible to avoid the public goods problem altogether?

I’ve alluded to the deeply philosophical nature of this problem; in a sense, it’s politicized within the software communities. Some folks believe that platform developers should shoulder the costs of compatibility, and others believe that platform users (developers themselves) should bear the costs. It’s really that simple. And isn’t politics always about who has to shoulder costs for shared problems?So it’s political. And there will be angry responses to this rant.

Over time Adam, Surplus' creator, had less and less time to spend on the project and I decided to take my own shot.

By the time Protestantism came along, people had already internalized an individualist worldview. Henrich calls Protestantism “the WEIRDest religion,” and says it gave a “booster shot” to the process set in motion by the Catholic Church. Integral to the Reformation was the idea that faith entailed personal struggle rather than adherence to dogma. Vernacular translations of the Bible allowed people to interpret scripture more idiosyncratically. The mandate to read the Bible democratized literacy and education. After that came the inquiry into God-given natural (individual) rights and constitutional democracies. The effort to uncover the laws of political organization spurred interest in the laws of nature—in other words, science. The scientific method codified epistemic norms that broke the world down into categories and valorized abstract principles. All of these psychosocial changes fueled unprecedented innovation, the Industrial Revolution, and economic growth.

The Indian government is pushing a bold proposal that would make scholarly literature accessible for free to everyone in the country

But maybe this PR should still be merged until he finds time for that?

Sorry this sat for so long!