youareawesome

Regardless of whether or not the output of Copilot is sufficiently "crow-like," the reality is that Copilot would not exist without its corpus of largely GPL-licensed code. Training data has value and many companies go to great lengths to hoard data for this exact reason. If Copilot is then offered for a price, GitHub is profiting from the work of thousands who never intended their code to be used in this way.

Agree, it's not new, and I think GP's point is that event-driven is the norm for the kernel and why kernel-level interfaces are efficient.

What's new here is that this is being made available to user-level custom applications.

Loading BPF requires root, so does loading kernel modules. I.e. if you have permissions to load BPF, you can already load arbitrary code.

This is easily solved using the Lambert W function:

Observe: W(x * e ^ x) = x

    x ^ x = y
    ln(x ^ x) = ln(y)
    ln(x) * x = ln(y)
    ln(x) * e ^ ln(x) = ln(y)
    W(ln(x) * e ^ ln(x)) = W(ln(y))
    ln(x) = W(ln(y))
    x = e^W(ln(y))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_W_function

Joel is a family friend. I personally don't know him very well but I remember a great demonstration of his encyclopedic knowledge of the classics at my bar mitzvah. Great to see him getting published.

This is great, thank you!

I've gotten a vasectomy exactly because it's clear that some of the worst outcomes of human-created climate change are inevitable, and I recommend anyone who cares about the environment and the well-being of their potential children to do the same.

My only question is what to do when the world actually ends in 10 or so years. I'm thinking of quitting my job in SF and moving to a rural area in northern midwest far from the oceans, but I haven't been able to get my family or friends to join me. I'm worried about the ahem political affiliations of those areas as well.

Does anybody have a good plan for what to do when the worst disasters occur? Like food shortages?

The 1A is about freedom to express any idea or opinion, not about literally publishing or saying whatever you want. Purposeful lying, for instance, is not covered under 1A. Finding bugs for the purpose of selling them to people with malicious intent is malicious itself, and is very likely not covered under 1A. All rights imply a commensurate duty. You don't have freedom of speech for the purposes of harming others.

Many years ago, My TA in 6.034 for some reason gave me a C for the semester. This made no sense because I was 80% sure I was supposed to get an A. I was hesitant to get in touch with the head TA for the class because I wasn't the sort of student to complain about a grade, but I did it anyway. He told me to come in and talk to PHW himself.

I came in and he asked me why my TA would give me a C and I told him I had no idea. He asked me if I came into recitation, I said yes. He asked me if I participated in recitation and I said yes. He told me that they checked on my grades and indeed it was a mistake.

I thanked him for taking the time to review my grade, and that I've never complained about a grade before but it seemed very off in this case. The expression on his face suddenly firmed up from detached to grave and he looked me in the eye and said "Always speak up when you think something is wrong, if you've earned something don't let someone take it away from you."

It's hard to explain, but that instilled a permanent confidence in me. Whenever I've defended myself in my adult life since then, I've felt the confidence of PHW holding me up. It can't be understated how important little pieces of advice like this are for young people. RIP PHW

Yes, everyone will eventually be equally poor and dependent on the government. Sounds great

Because one is just cynical pandering to non-rich people and an increase in government power at the expense of liberty while the other is actually effective at reducing poverty, reducing wealth inequality, and reducing dependence on the government. Throwing money at the problem doesn't work, especially a 5% increase. The problem is how corporations are structured.

Yeah, so then let's eliminate the next 100, and so on and so forth until everyone is penniless.

These statistics don't tell the whole story and often are misleading. While increasing the number of welfare recipients may decrease poverty stats for paper-pushing bureaucrats, on the ground you're increasing the number of people who are dependent on the govt for subsistence which isn't viable in the long-term.

It's been shown that a comfortable reliance on welfare disincentivizes becoming independent again. Especially when welfare recipients have a higher income than minimum wage. Any rational actor will have a hard time transitioning to minimum wage work at the risk of losing welfare when income from welfare is higher. This is plainly obvious https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-welfare-recipients...

Would you be in favor of adding a time-limit to welfare eligibility to disincentivize long-term reliance on welfare?

The IRS only enforces tax collection on the wealthiest individuals because it isn't efficient to do otherwise, that's why you see most of the tax revenue coming from the wealthy. They only go after the big fish.

You're wrong if you think that taxing individuals is going to decrease poverty or wealth inequality. Wealth inequality is not due to wealth individuals holding assets, but due to pay inequality. Corporations hold their profits instead of paying their workers fairly. It would be much more effective to impose a wealth tax on corporations to incentivize them to pay their workers.

Large multi-national monopolies are the problem, not rich people. If you can't see that, the corporations have effectively used your own morals against you. The uber rich won't be affected, only the new rich, people rising from the middle class.

After that first year there would be no one left to tax, so how would you sustain your government's revenue long term?

Yeah I don't think increasing welfare is really the solution to ending poverty. Lots of evidence that welfare actually prolongs poverty, not to mention the waste endemic to bureaucratic administration. How about instead of taxing individuals we tax corporations to incentivize paying their workers more?

This doesn't apply to everyone, only about 80K people who hold more than $50M in assets.

Do you really think an extra $100B-$200B added to federal revenue of currently ~$3.6T (5%) will have any noticeable effect on poverty?

Just because it's not literally applicable doesn't mean it's meaningless, it emphasizes an important point that people overlook. The amount of wealth held by the top 80K is a drop in the bucket when compared to the total revenue of the federal government.

The greatest effect of this policy is that it will harm individual liberty. It will have nearly no effect on improving poverty or increasing social programs.

This is not an income tax, this is a wealth tax. Very different. You're taxed on money you are simply holding.

I never brought up the top 1% and the top 1% has nothing to do with the wealth tax. The wealth tax will apply to all Americans with assets over $50 million, which is roughly ~80K people, or 0.02% of the population.

Taxation is well-acknowledged a trade-off between liberty and social responsibility.

This is a new type of tax that has never been implemented in the US. If the goal is to reduce poverty, it won't do that. So what is the goal?

Only those with more than 50 million in total assets will be paying a "wealth tax" according to Liz Warren's plan, everyone else won't be paying.

I never claimed the top 1% is just the top 100 wealthiest Americans.

If you took the total combined wealth of the wealthiest 100 Americans, you wouldn't be able to fund the federal government for more than half a year or so.

Taxing the rich sounds nice as virtuous political rhetoric but it won't effectively address poverty, just further erodes the liberty of private citizens. If you want to fund more social programs then tax corporations, like the oil companies and the large investment firms, like ExxonMobil and Goldman Sachs. Don't punish success.

I agree that attention should be drawn to potentially malicious behavior.

I don't know that the actions were indeed malicious but there is evidence to suggest that they may have been and I'm doing my small part to make the greater community aware. This will enable the community to make wiser judgments in the future, if the need arises.

Do you think potentially malicious behavior should be overlooked or made known?

Do you think it's possible that this wasn't a mistake and instead they acted with malicious intentions and only fixed the problem to minimize the negative PR fallout? If not, why not?

Do you think they would they have fixed the problem if they weren't called out publicly?

When they were called out privately, no mistake was admitted and no action was taken. The attribution was only added after they were called out publicly.

This project has been known to copy code from other projects without respecting licenses. The founder of ethereum pointed this out a few weeks ago.

https://twitter.com/gavofyork/status/1094597005333151745 https://twitter.com/Sunfishcode/status/1075486397824327681

The extent to which the people in this project took "inspiration" from wasmjit has been questioned as well https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer/commit/a81500e047fdd321b3...