chc

If Microsoft buys Activision, wouldn't they then be funding Activision's development? The major difference here appears to be looking at a deal in foresight vs. hindsight.

So what you're saying is it would increase competition by selling more of the currently-less-popular platform rather than reduce it by eliminating the dominant platform? That sounds like an argument in favor of the deal.

I think it's meant to imply the solution given in their username ("idiomatic Rust").

"Transformative" in copyright is a much stronger word than the word "transform" is in computer science. If your "transformation" could be used in many of the same places as the original, it is most likely not transformative in the copyright sense. If you modify or add on to a work, most of the time what you're creating is called a derivative work, which is not protected from copyright claims. We don't really have established law on this particular case, but to me, what neural networks do seems much more similar to tracing or redrawing some artwork from memory than it does to, for example, a parody.

But also, non-human actors cannot create copyrighted works, transformative or otherwise. For example, a photographer once gave his camera to a monkey and it took some pretty interesting pictures. He tried to get copyright for these photos, but the Copyright Office ruled that he wasn't the one who created them and the monkey is not a person, so the photos are not copyrightable at all. The law could be changed in these cases, but if we're treating the AI as a creative agent rather than a reservoir of other people's works that humans can request from it, then it seems to me like AI-created works should simply not be copyrightable.

> I often get the feeling that in these circumstances people derive first principles from specific desired outcomes.

That's a pretty normal way derive principles, isn't it? You start with an observation, and then you recursively ask "why?" It's possible that your answers are wrong, or even that your observation itself is flawed, but the concept of deriving principles from outcomes isn't really flawed. Where else are they going to come from? Should people just pick principles at random and hope they're not terrible?

Reddit actually has added a couple of features since then (e.g. polls), but they just didn't update the API to deal with those, so the API still remained completely stable.

I think you're confusing the term "social contract" with "oral contract." An oral contract will usually be superseded by a written contract, but saying a written contract supersedes a social contract seems like a category error. One determines your legal standing, the other determines your social standing, neither really supersedes the other.

The original point of this thread is that they'd like to be able to get an M2 PC like that. So that's the problem.

It's to allow them to get apps. I wouldn't describe being able to run apps without being involuntarily tracked by a third party as "having your cake and eating it too." It's just a basic expectation of privacy. As it happens, Google makes this basically impossible to do without running afoul of their TOS, but I would characterize that as Google being unreasonable, not the users.

There have been many proposals along these lines, but Republicans in Congress don't like it because they believe making it painful to file taxes will win support for their generalized opposition to taxes.

I felt kind of the same way — but as an alternate perspective, it was only 530 years ago that most of Europe didn't even know the Americas existed.

Is there a reason you think people should lend your opinion more credence than that of the archaeologists who studied the site?

Do you believe it is possible for one person to understand multiple topics in different fields as well as the experts in those fields? That seems like a massive unspoken assumption in your point of view here. If not, it seems like some level of trust in experts is the only possible way to know much about the world beyond the rudiments.

It's not good, but only looking at the bad half of a tradeoff will always look bad. Without diving into the glibc source code to understand what it's doing, it is hard to say if this is actually wrong.

How is it ad hominem to say that somebody's comment is excessively harsh to somebody, but not ad hominem to say that somebody's comment is attacking somebody? They're extremely similar sentiments, and I personally wouldn't categorize either as ad hominem for the same reason — a person is distinct from the tone of their comment.

Mario Galaxy was not even 20 years ago, and that was the point of comparison, so I think you're stating your case a bit more strongly than is fair.

I would say the same about middlebrow dismissals like the one that comment was responding to, but apparently if you make a comment like yours toward them it's a bad thing.

If parallax mapping is more expensive than just rendering the equivalent polygons, doesn't that imply that the Spider-Man games are being wasteful with their texture-based building interiors? I thought it was supposed to be an optimization and rendering actual objects would be wasteful. Have I got that wrong?

If the least few months have taught us anything, it's that Elon Musk is not big on testing things before they go to production.

Somewhat paradoxically, PyPy always uses more memory for programs with small working sets, but can use less memory for programs with large working sets. 1/6 is a lot more extreme than I would have expected, though.

It's a nit-pick because it's ultimately just a gripe about ambiguous phrasing, not because the implications of what the phrasing means are unimportant.

1. It currently only compiles a subset of Python, which is presumably why they said it was based on Python rather than Python.

2. There are lots of good developers who aren't capable of making any statements in English.

I tried doing the same thing with the Radeon R7 250 (an old GPU that was weak when it was introduced) and got essentially the same answer, so it doesn't seem like it's just regurgitating praise.

What impressed me just as much about these answers, though, was that it correctly identified that the comparison was silly. I don't believe it has seen that exact comparison before, so it seems like it has to have a granular enough categorization of tokens to know that people would say a comparison between a GPU and a computer is silly, and that those are a GPU and computer, and that one is old and the other is new.

I tried asking ChatGPT easy but completely off-the-wall questions and it consistently got the answers surprisingly right. For example, I asked it "Which is more powerful, a DEC VAX or a GTX 1070?" and it both noted that this comparison was questionable, as the two are not used in the same context, and correctly answered that the GeForce has much more processing power than a VAX. There are no Google results that directly answer that question, and yet ChatGPT knew that was what it should say.

So while it is obviously just guessing what to say, the idea that it is just regurgitating existing material seems wrong to me. It does some pretty impressive synthesis to come up with its answers.

The OP doesn't appear to be complaining. The conclusion of the article is basically that the field is full enough of bad actors to justify drastic action like this.

And I hope you see that you've demonstrated why "recall" is a poorly chosen word for that, since the word's normal definitions have nothing to do with "documentation," "customer awareness" or "fixing the problem."

> Whether or not you have to drive to a dealership, if it's OTA, if someone at a dealership needs to plug a specialized device to your car's OBD port, or the car is unfixable and needs to be melted to slag and you get a new one doesn't really matter.

As a car owner, those scenarios are drastically different to me. I have a hard time imagining anyone saying "It doesn't really matter to me if my car receives an OTA update or if I need to drive 2 hours to a dealership or if my car is melted to slag."

I think it's referring to partial server-side renders. SSR is usually used to refer to statically rendering pages, while the "new" thing is to dynamically update pages with chunks of SSR-created HTML.

That was their point, yes. These tools treat anything they see malware do as a potential signal of malware, without any consideration of what the activity is. Obviously they're not actually going to flag "running on a CPU" as a sign of malware, but it's a pretty reasonable parody of their methodology.

If you're just looking to run trusted scripts locally, there isn't much point. If you're running a system that uses wasm, this means you can now easily support Python.