Can we please be done with the term “the quiet part”?

It’s not even piracy though. I never saw anyone torrent Windows_XP_Home_Cracked.iso and go “Hey guys, check out this operating system I made!”

Pirating Windows for your own personal, private use, which will never directly make you a single dollar: HIGHLY ILLEGAL

Scraping your creative works so they can make billions by selling automated processes that compete against your work: Perfectly fine and normal!

Comments here: “Yeah right, I’ll believe it when they explain how.”

Article: literally has a section explaining how

Edit:

Replies: “Yeah, but that’s just a summary. I’ll believe it when they explain in full detail.”

Article: literally has a link to the detailed explanation

It doesn’t seem like the ruling says copyright concerns justify overriding a right to anonymity under GDPR, but that the right to anonymity doesn’t exist in the first place.

I think that’s probably a better place to be, because it means they can legislate a right to anonymity.

As a contractor, your client isn’t allowed to dictate your work methods. It’s one of the things the IRS looks at when identifying misclassified employees.

Article says it’s likely an OpenAI partnership.

TAKES THE GLOVES OFF and TEARS INTO HIM before SLAMMING HIM

As a developer, my default definition of “slow” is whether it’s slow on my machine. Not ideal, but chimp brain do chimp brain things. My eyes see my own screen all day, not yours.

I use Linux because Hackintosh is a dying platform and it only takes about 800 hours to get it almost as good.

The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said “Master, I have heard that objects are a very good thing - is this true?” Qc Na looked pityingly at his student and replied, “Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man’s closures.”

Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell, intent on studying closures. He carefully read the entire “Lambda: The Ultimate…” series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system. He learned much, and looked forward to informing his master of his progress.

On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by saying “Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand that objects are truly a poor man’s closures.” Qc Na responded by hitting Anton with his stick, saying “When will you learn? Closures are a poor man’s object.” At that moment, Anton became enlightened.

This is why I said anything built on public work, should be public goods as well.

What if I don’t want certain people to build on my work, or to constrain the ways in which the build on it? (Non-commercial, share-alike, attribution, etc. clauses) Should I be able to?

That’s not a good comparison. Crypto was a (bad) solution looking for a problem. GenAI already has use-cases.

I didn’t mean to compare the technology – though there are some similar scam vectors, but that’s a different conversation.

I meant that there was a strong contingent of crypto fans back then who were saying – correctly – that “the mainstream system is corrupt and wields legislation as a weapon against consumers”. But their proposed alternative was a system that removed all regulation, including consumer protections.

I worry that there’s a trend in tech circles today that echoes that sentiment when it comes to AI.

I’m also rather disappointed that a substantial group of people who I used to assume I was aligned with – pirates and open-sourcerers – turned out to only be there for the free shit and not for the ethos.

An ethos which, to me, is something like: everyone has a right to participate in culture and be a part of the conversation, and everyone has a duty to acknowledge the work that enabled their own and do their best to be a good custodian of the upstream works.

Copyright law is broken. But I don’t think that means we have no obligations to each other as human beings when we build on each other’s work.

We had the same argument during the crypto craze. The financial system is broken, but 10 years later I think we all agree that crypto is pretty clearly not the answer.

Visual Studio: 😳

How do you send 200x as much data?

You don’t. The external system needs to run an approximation of the internal system, which the internal system will also run and only transmit differences.

There you go. Solved it. (By delegating to a new problem.)

I started on MacVim, so I could just use cmd+q. And by the time I used vim on the terminal I knew all about :commands

Personal use of business assets is generally frowned upon by the IRS.

Can I super-mega-ultra upvote this?

It’s the same playbook as ever. Doubt can only be explained by ignorance, failure can only be explained by under-committing,

The only way to have a “valid” opinion is to have already bought-in and be actively selling other people on it. It’s the same mentality as a cult or a pyramid scheme.

Energy and water.

I think it’s kind of strange.

Between quantification and consciousness, we tend to dismiss consciousness because it can’t be quantified.

Why don’t we dismiss quantification because it can’t explain consciousness?