What are some good and legal ways to get rich with tech? (Being able to make a living is enough)
What can you do with little to no monetary investment that will actually make a nice sum? Write a specific type of software? Web dev? Gain knowledge in [...]? Buying X for cheap on Y and selling it for big bucks on Z? ...?
Other urls found in this thread:
thenextweb.com
github.com
gnu.org
pjreddie.com
twitter.com
Find a significantly faster way to build CRUD systems, and use it.
unironically mine crypto currency.
this but ironically
Write a script that generates CGI videos of dancing Disney & Marvel 3D models set to nursery rhymes and uploads them to YouTube tagged with clickbait titles.
I use neural networks to generate art, and idiots at auction houses actually buy the crap.
Ethically or non ethically ?
Self employ yourself and go troughs your city/village and propose people to be their aid and computer repair wizard for 5 bucks per months. Get as much customers you need to get minimum wage.
You'll need to be able to make step by step documentations and respond to their needs, make them understand why some of their request cannot be done.
Tech speaking you'll need to automate a lot of tasks, unironically install gentoo, learn about the many faces of abstraction.
Besides the tech side you'll need to be good at communicating so I recommend reading books about it like nonviolent communication.
If I had the money I would buy a few isolated lands with self sustainable shacks with a nice library in each one of them, then I would employ fellow male and female hackers and try to pair them, their mission will be to develop what they are asked too. They'll have to send their work each month via post mail in the form of a CD or USB key.
Hopefully they'll have kids that grow away from the actual madness. Thus the freedom and hacker way could maybe be preserved.
That is my dream.
Story?
I'll tell you but your going to have to send me $49.99 to my bitcoin address.
sent ;)
I was kidding, but the story is true for someone out there. Basically some guys just grabbed a package off github, used it to make some artwork (pic related), and it sold for $432,000. The creator of the code was rather salty about it.
thenextweb.com
The cuck licensed the code as BSD, but I suppose GPL wouldn't have helped him here either. The solution is to never share your code? Funnily enough, the copyright is actually assigned to Faceberg.
BSD LicenseFor dcgan.torch softwareCopyright (c) 2015, Facebook, Inc. All rights reserved.
Get insider information about big businesses somehow, find out what they do day to day. ESPECIALLY companies that are NOT in technology fields. There's a very high chance that you can create big savings for them through software that makes their work easier, and they will pay you accordingly.
Ask your relatives and basically everyone you know what they do at work. Not sure how to find out if you don't know anyone though.
Is he salty because he didn't think of it first and cash in or because AI artists aren't getting any exposure?
Modern art is just an elaborate money laundering scheme for purchases of drugs/weapons/murder/etc where the transfer of funds is done in plain sight.
Probably because he missed out on the cash. According to his github, he's only 19, that must seem like quite a lot to him.
Trump needs to move on this shit. Can you imagine a world leader banning degenerate art styles like Dadaism and anything "Modern"?
The only thing Trump is going to do is further trample on your rights and bitch about the Dems not wanting to fund the wall.
This but unironically. Cryptocoin mining is not profitable for small fish.
Even that's too much work, you could just squirt the paint out of your asshole onto a canvas and call it a day. In fact, forget about the canvas or the paint, just take a shit into a tin can and auction it off.
This.
Yeah the GPL wouldn't have mattered EXCEPT that the creator of the content would have been mandate to add the license with/next to is art.
Funny enough is that the artist isn't even required to share the binary/seed that he compiled for this painting.
Sure it's a bit unfair in this situation but it's part of what freedom is. Can you imagine if the guy who invented the hammer was mad each time that someone used one ?
Proof ?
Are you married ? Do you have a wife ?
Doesn't work that way you cringy GPLesbian.
WRONG.
Use of freesoftware in a project != redistrubution of code.
Did you honestly think this through before posting? that would mean that everyone ever who use blender or gimp would have to shove GPL next to it.
And that obviously isn't the case.
Weak analogy. It's not as though you can just take a hammer, make one low effort swing at a nail and then sell the result for hundreds of thousands.
Strange I've seen otherwise irl. Maybe because the guy give a usb key with the source code. Thanks for the link.
Pleb.
Yes that's pretty much the how people do, for companies you sometimes have to ask for the source code if you are given a binary only and that's legal since the GPL doesn't mandate the sharing of source code, but not all companies requires you to ask them the source code.
Yes.
No my post meant that if the content produced was made with GPL software the GPL and copyright of the said software/author had to displayed, not that the art was under GPL, I thought it worked a bit like the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Too competitive now.
I don't know if you understand what is a software compiler. The GNU C Compiler is one of these software compilers. The logic you're saying here means that if somebody wants to use the GNU C compiler to compile their software, then their software is required to display the fact that it was compiled by GNU C Compiler. Your idea of the GPL is simply wrong.
You shouldn't expect a GPL commie to understand logic, just like you shouldn't expect an actual commie to understand free exchange.
Web dev is bubble as fuck right now. Get in fast and save up bank before everybody realizes "the cloud" is a fucking meme.
Source code cannot be executed by a computer.
Binary is the only thing a computer can process.
A compiler converts source code to binary.
I'm aware that it is more complicated than that and interpreters are a thing.
I've haven't read the GPL itself but the big lines on gnu.org and that it was copyleft. I was aware of the CC license so I thought they were similar.
Am I wrong if I say that if a binary is distributed and the source code is GPL the responsible for compiling and distributing it has to make the the user aware about that the software is GPL ?
Isn't it ironic that the proprietary software developers call us communists? We are the ones who have provided for a free market, where they allow only monopoly.
-RMS
No, you aren't. Ignoring the actual requirements of the GPL which are enforced by the state through the courts, if it was us to you you'd use the government's coercive power to force every programmer to release the source code with the binaries. That's why you are a commie. At least with regular "intellectual property" you're only controlled when you are working with something somebody else created, when you're creating something from scratch then you can do whatever the fuck you want to do. Not under the world commie Stallman would like us to live under, oh no.
A free market means no government interference.
Of course, stallmanites, like the good leftists they are, try to give words different meanings to support their cause.
See? I can do it too.
m8 the GPL doesn't even force people to share the source code immediately, people are however mandate when they are asked the source code and they aren't even forced to share it on a cd or usb key it could even be paper.
lel being a communist is extremely broad from your point of view.
That doesn't mean that it's good to do so. Same as it is to live together. If you're insane and bring harm to others you are excluded, your are mentally ill and need to be medically treated.
Are you aware that making suppositions, amalgams and putting words into the mouth of people isn't making you credible ?
u want a >you ?
Get some rest off the internet and try to socialize with people who think differently from you.
If you want to make money from a project you release open source don't even think about releasing it under one of the GPL licenses. It might seem counter intuitive at first but releasing code under a permissive license such as BSD or MIT is how you make money from your open source projects.
Companies shy away from even looking at GPL code for products but will often use code with more permissive licenses. Often those companies will decide they want the open source code modified to better suit their needs and will contract with the creator to make them a custom version of the codebase since its easier than getting their engineers to do it, or companies using an open source codebase will pay the creator to maintain and improve it. I personally know someone who made a significant amount of money from the former case and an example of the latter case is the YOLO object detection codebase (pjreddie.com
Or they could pay the creator to just re-licence the code to them however they please (but the trick here if you're using GPL code is to never accept contributions, or have them sign over ownership to you).
fintech
That's exactly the reason why the Linux Foundation is made up of software startups who know nothing about the GPL and Linux.