Tomte

I brought my MX Master 3 to a brand new Mac mini and was terribly confused. Mouse movement was janky, jumpy, unusable.

It turns out that you need third party tools for non-Apple mice, like Mac Mouse Fix.

Keyboard isn't much better, since Apple encourages you to bring your own keyboard, but doesn't even ship a keymap for PC keyboards.

Could be Simpson's Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

Sure, but the title change is strange. I'd even say changing the meaning makes it outrage bait in the first place, because now HN has taken a stance, where before it was just the article author's opinion.

The author knows that. Fourth paragraph.

> Well, yes. "It hasn't been tried in court yet" is not the same as "Precedent says this is explicitly allowed".

Please read my comment carefully, without simply assuming I must be on AI companies' side. I'm covering two exhaustive, mutually exclusive cases. In both cases I think your license does nothing, compared to a normal MIT license.

> they've already indicated that they know what the outcome is going to be

I agree with you! But even in the case where they are in the wrong, they are already in the wrong with a standard MIT license!

And in the other case: fair use trumps the license text. That's the point of it!

body { font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:10pt; color:#828282; }

td { font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:10pt; color:#828282; }

There are these anti-AI licenses popping up en masse now, and I don't see the point. They get the intention across, yes, but at least under American law training AI either is fair use or it isn't.

If it is, your new license doesn't matter, they may use it. If it isn't, your new license doesn't matter, they're lready acting illegally. Is this argument wrong?

For whatever reason. It was the original title and is descriptive. Are the mods having a bad day?

For web services maybe. I don't see Amazon destroy the business of a desktop application.

> but literally can't use extra 2 minutes for _every_ link I open while browsing news sites

The expectation to open every link may be the real issue. If the title and Readme don't speak to you, just let it be. You will always miss out on most things on the Internet.

Thank you!

> Dictionaries outrank everything else when it comes what something means.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

As is the whole field of linguistics, as you will learn in the very first lecture in such a program. If the grammar rules you learned in school disagree with (any!) native speaker, the rules are wrong.

I’d really be interested in an example of such a license. Where is the difference in the two definitions?

Of course. Has anyone ever found a case of a license that not one or the other?

The Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition are structured differently, but pretty obviously map from one to another.

Does it still work on current MacOS X?

From the article:

    But yes, a 20% tariff is manageable.   It will mean things cost more and added up across all sorts of things that are made not in the US it will affect everyone’s wallet.   But as a business I can manage almost anything if I know about it.  

    What isn’t manageable is the absolute chaotic nature of how these things are being implemented.   Tariffs on, tariffs off, extra tariffs, no extra tariffs.  15% increase on April 2nd.  Just Kidding, only 15% on some things but we aren’t saying what those things are.

    I can manage anything, but I cannot reasonably run a business where I don’t know what the cost of goods is going to be.

Friends don't let friends use iText:

https://beemanmuchmore.com/software-licensing-trolls-apryse-...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43116712

The article discusses that B-2s would be overkill, since the Houthis have no relevant air-defense. It speculates about Iran instead.

Not open source.

Yes: "I've been creating a free to download edition of my classic "Mastering Delphi 5" with footnotes indicating what is different today"

Apple cares about that. With money.

This is a way to express your reservation, pursuant to Article 4(3) of the EU's DSM Directive.

The legal machinery is already in place, we now need precisely that: a standard for machine-readable reservations.

A phone app can translate that. Yes, dependence on phone etc., but the company I work for is doing that for industrial automation components, and users seem happy.

> fd is distributed under the terms of both the MIT License and the Apache License 2.0.

So not dual-licensed (MIT OR Apache-2.0), but MIT AND Apache-2.0? That's unusual.

Later: it seems they intended dual-licensing, and botched the wording: https://github.com/sharkdp/fd/issues/105

You will face much harder decisions in your business. Are you going to ask several investors whether to hire an assistant, or rent an office, as well?

Deutsche Bahn: 1hr+ --> 25%, 2hr+ --> 50%

> Perhaps your super awesome precedent case against BBC, Sony, and or Disney will end in your favor

You have no clue at all. Goodbye!

> An external work done by someone else is implicitly owned by that creator.

Rendering an image is not "creating a work“ in the copyright sense. There may be all kinds of other legal quagmires, implicit contracts etc., but copyright is not one of them.

> someone else actually wrote the work

So you throw in a totally different situation? If the Blender scene has been modelled by someone else, then yes, that someone owns the copyright. But not because I let someone else render the completed scene.

> The reason is simply a weird copyright paradox could form when a work is rendered on someone else's computer

Why? Copyright protects creativity, not hardware ownership. J.K. Rowling doesn't print her books in her apartment, either.

Java releases are timeboxed, so they don't need standout features.