Because it's hard to draw the line on which requests should be refused and which should not be refused, because it's hard for an AI to pretend to be human, and because they have other objectives to work toward rather than just passing the Turing test.
They say they're hiring but I didn't even get an email back about my application and I've been awarded $20k through the vesuvius challenge and have 10 years experience in the exact job they're hiring for so I really don't know what they're looking for or if they're looking that hard.
Actually, they are CT scanning them as the project continues. IIRC they reported about scanning a new (big) batch of them about a month ago.
You are right about not unrolling them though. Many scrolls were destroyed in previous attempts to unroll them physically, so it is fascinating to see how the technology has progressed to allow reading without unrolling.
That doesn't matter anymore. The wealthy class might not be called "royalty" (yet?), but they effectively are. The chances today for someone who starts in a poor family to reach middle class, let alone become rich, are very slim. Pretending that the current system in the US is catering to anyone else except the rich is disingenuous.
That said, I agree that the economy of such a society has a better chance of succeeding, but it's at the cost of suffering of lots of people. Actually both extremes are bad - socialism has its problems, but so does the unchecked capitalism.
Not sure why Redis is blamed for the "rug pull". They didn't relicense the old versions. They just said "sorry guys, we don't want to support this project under those terms anymore". They are under no obligation to do that, legal or moral. Don't like it? No problem, fork it and maintain it yourself (as many did). But don't demand of others to continue to support the project under those terms if they do not want to. This is FOSS working as intended.
All those people that contributed, did so to the FOSS version. Their contributions live on in all the forks, both FOSS and proprietary (by Amazon & co., and Redis before today). So not sure where "betrayal" supposedly happened. Maybe when Amazon used their contributions too?
> ...pressure Apple to catch up to Google's web standards faster.
Ftfy.
Safari is the only brake we have in this rush towards complex and unmaintainable web, with Google (the only company which can afford to play this game) at the helm. So no, Safari not supporting some random new feature is not a bad thing.
During the "Safari is the new IE" era though, Apple had created all sorts of proprietary extensions to make websites more mobile-friendly... a whole slew of nonstandard `-webkit-*` prefixed CSS properties and DOM events.
I can't say for sure whether pressure from Google got all that stuff migrated into real web standards faster or not, but it sure felt at the time like it was having that effect.
That's one of the main problems with Google controlling not only the top browser but also the rendering engine behind most of the competition. They don't have to care about standards at that point. When they do, it's mostly to put a veneer of openness over their operations.
