Yeah, that’s not open source. You plan on releasing today’s version as open source two years from now, but it is not currently open source and won’t be for years. Even when it does become open source it will be a version that is two years out of date, not the current version.
Open source allows commercial competition. You apparently didn’t want that, so you chose a non-open source license that specifically forbids that. That’s your prerogative, but you shouldn’t tell people it is open source.
I concede that it is not precisely OSS. But if I tell someone that it is source-available, they will expect some kind of license restriction for any use. If I tell someone OSS, they will expect mostly what the Sentry license entails, unless they are a competitor, in which case I really don't care what they think.
I wish there were a popular term that conveys exactly how Sentry license works. But, there isn't - so I think it's fair to say open source, maybe as a general term. I'll change it from OSS to open source
The comparison to OpenAPI is the main thing to address and you re right to ask why it isn t enough.
OpenAPI is fantastic for describing a static API for a developer to read. But the web is more than that its a dynamic stateful environment built for human interaction. The current trend of forcing AI agents to navigate this human-centric web with screen scraping and DOM manipulation is brittle and I believe, unsustainable. Its like sending a robot into a grocery store to read the label on every single can instead of just asking the manager for the inventory list.
This is where Aura tries to be different in two key ways
Control & Permission:not just Documentation: Aura is designed from the website owner's perspective. It's a way for a site to say "This is my property and here are the explicit rules for how an automated agent can interact with it." The aura.json file is a handshake a declaration of consent. It gives control back to the site owner.
Statefulness(This is the big one): An OpenAPI spec is stateless. It cant tell an agent what it can do right now based on its current context. This is what the AURA-State header solves. So for example before you log in the AURA-State might only show you list_posts and login capabilities. After you successfully call login the very next response from the server includes a new AURA-State header that now unlocks capabilities like create_post and update_profile. The agent discovers its new powers dynamically. This state management is core to the protocol and doesn't really have a parallel in OpenAPI.
You re right to be skeptical and as I said in my post maybe Aura isnt the final answer. But I strongly believe the web needs a native capability-aware layer for the coming wave of AI agents. The current path of brute force interaction feels like it will break the open, human-centric web we ve all built.
It's bad faith, a normal stacking would have made them completely disappear, it's one of main reasons to do stacking, remove things which are not on all images, and it's works flawlessly.
You have to actively tweak your settings to create this kind of photo.
I guess the most basic way to stack (just add the images together) would leave them in, but
> Almost every modern astronomical post-processing program has a rejection process (sometimes referred to as sigma-reject) to remove unwanted signals, though the exact sequence will depend on which program you use.
> The way this process works is that, while averaging all of the pixels in a series of, say, 10 images, the program mathematically calculates which pixels fall far away from the mean value because they're much brighter (or much fainter) compared to the same pixels in other frames. The algorithm then discards those out-of-range pixel values so they don’t affect the final image.
Wouldn't this process remove part of the comet trails as well as the satellite trails?
I mean, I get how it works if all you care about is relatively static like distant stars, but would it work for this specific use case?
The most common algorithm to manage airplanes, satellites, hot pixels, and other undesired photons in astrophotos is a process called Kappa-Sigma Clipping. It essentially rejects pixel values from subframes in your image stack that fall outside a user-inputted deviation from the mean.
In other words, the process works wonderfully to get rid of the starlink-emitted photons, but you lose that subframe's signal, lowering your signal to noise ratio. Not the end of the world. But inconvenient and sometimes costly to professional astronomers.
Yeah, but what % of subframes (small portions of large images) are ruined by noise caused by moving objects? Way less than 1% I'd imagine. It's just not a big problem. And certainly not worth outlawing new satellite launches over.
The comet does not change but its position in the sky does btw. Longer exposure times turn points into streaks if the object is not tracked to compensate for this.
Yes, I assumed tracking as it's basically a mandatory requirement when you do telephoto astrophotography, and definitely used in the OP photo. The alternative is to shoot wider angle and align the images during stacking, but either way you have to get your subject's pixels aligned or the result is just blur.
If it created trails, then it would also multiply the brightness of the stars and the comet by the number of pictures (17 in this case). Each satellite appears only on one photo, while the stars and comets appear on all 17 in the exact same spot. The only way to stack them to get a normal looking stars and comet is to make an average. And since the satellites only appear on 1 out of 17 they would effectively disappear.
Unless you actually want to have the satellites there, then the stacking would just cut the region with the satellite from each photo and simply glue them together. That's how you can get this image.
I actually just tried it in Hugin. Normal stacking from 2 pictures by default made the objects that appeared only on one of the pictures semi-transparent. If I did this with more pictures, they would be so transparent that I wouldn't see them at all. But I could manually select a mask to cut out the portions that I don't want. If I select and exclude the object (satellite streak) it would disappear completely. But I could also purposefully include the streak and in that case all the satellite streaks would be included in full brightness in the result. That's most likely how this photo was made.
I think this is important. The OP seems to think that management is totally open to just being fair and inclusive with individual employees but that the situation becomes too polarized when a union is implemented. This ignores the fact that it's in management's favor to keep people isolated and unaware of other employees issues.
No matter how great your workplace is, it's already us vs them whether you want to admit it or not. That's the nature of the beast.
Whose competition? Other companies are not employee's competition, they are potential places to work. They only compete with the company, not the employees.
Kickstarter's prime competition is Indiegogo. Kickstarter employees who think their competition is against Kickstarter leadership rather than Indiegogo are at risk to seriously suboptimize, IMO. (The same is true for Kickstarter leadership, of course.)
The overall success and value they are able to create jointly with their colleagues and take home a portion of for themselves and their family. I also find that to be an interesting, motivating, fun, and financially rewarding game to play.
I support your right to use other metrics as you prefer to make your choices, of course.
take home a portion of for themselves and their family
I'm sure there are companies where the portion of value I get to take home is directly related to the value I and my colleagues created, but I've never worked at such a company. Perhaps that is the sort of thing unions could help with?
edit: That being said, I've worked at companies where the primary 'enemy' was either "the bosses at HQ" or rival departments and I agree that it is toxic and a terrible way to run a company. However when the company ends up in that state it is a failure of management and not of the workers.
How many companies are located within such close geographic proximity to their competitors that employees can choose to work for the competition without moving to a completely separate place? Outside of natural resource extraction, this kind of thinking only applies to nascent eras of new and flourishing industries such as the late 19th century steel industry, early 20th century automobile industry, and current SV-centered tech industry. Eventually those industries will expand away from that overly competitive region in a fragmented manner, divorcing an employees choice in employment from affecting any change in the labor market for a given industry.
None of that is relevant to the employer-employee relationship. My employer's competition is not my competition. Even if there were no hiring competitors, they would still not be my competition. I would still want equitable bargaining power with my employer.
And regardless of that, if my employer is willing to pay our CEO over 20x what they pay their average employee, they are not in a position to niggle over the kinds of systemic inefficiencies they would suffer under a union.
> And regardless of that, if my employer is willing to pay our CEO over 20x what they pay their average employee, they are not in a position to niggle over the kinds of systemic inefficiencies they would suffer under a union.
Do you not believe that a CEO could have at least 20 times the impact on the value of a company than the average employee, and if so, should they not be compensated accordingly?
The only way to solve the inherent adversity in the employer/employee relationship is to eliminate the employer/employee distinction.
Expecting owners to be fair by default is to be at the whim of their charity. "Friendly work environment" and other anti-union canards are merely an attempt to paper over exploitative behavior with flowery words. Unions are a stopgap at best.
The only business that can reliably be expected to run ethically is one that is owned by the workers.
>The only way to solve the inherent adversity in the employer/employee relationship is to eliminate the employer/employee distinction.
It has little to do with that. As long as there are managers, there will always been a tension between what the employee wants to do and what the manager is expected to deliver to the rest of the company.
That's like saying that democracy is useless because politicians and public officers write and enforce the rules.
Yeah, authority structures have to exist, but the authorities make different decisions when they're appointed from above vs elected from below.
Democratic ownership and operation of the state has been the global norm for almost a century. It's not that radical to apply the same principle to business. What is business but government in microcosm? Why should we be content to spend 40 hours a week larping feudalism?
At what imaginary time in history did owners and management consider themselves part of an "us" with workers? Maybe in some rare, contained instances. You can't take a step "down" from something that simply doesn't exist.
Many family businesses are "us", at least in the good times. Non-family employed by those businesses are seldom under any illusions about being included in that...
Those can last for decades, however. A profitable family business is less likely to get bought out and fire everyone. No one's job is safe in an unprofitable business, family or not.
But that's divide and conquer, it may be a good strategy if you're trying to win a war but if you're trying to form a culture of teamwork and individual responsibility maybe not so much.
reply