CWuestefeld

The first step was easy. The account creation and import of legacy data all went pretty well. But after that it wasn't so pretty.

The first hurdle was trying to understand their model for sharing data (so my wife and I can share important credentials). The model that LastPass uses is pretty intuitive to me: it's just a matter of sharing a folder, so relatively transparent. But Bitwarden has a whole separate concept of "organization", and the items being managed don't go in "folders" here, but in "collections". So there are two separate, and subtly different, models in play, and this is confusing. The good news is that the client aggregates the data so when you're using it day-to-day to fill login forms, you don't have to worry about the differences.

Once I'd gotten the data in place, I had to get the clients set up on the various platforms (browser extensions; desktop native, which is actually required for the browser extension's security to work right; phone). The OoB settings were entirely paranoid, and had me re-entering the complex master password over and over, really annoying me. Figuring out how to get to a reasonable balance required figuring out some settings whose labels are misleading. For example, "Unlock with PIN" sounded to me like it was going to add an extra layer of security, but it turns out that it really means "allow unlock using PIN in lieu of master password".

Also, note that while most of the settings default to paranoia-level (like the "require master password every time I inhale", that I mentioned above), you will probably want to change the default crypto cypher. It defaults to PBKDF2, but a better modern approach is the other choice, Argon2id.

...which also reminds me that there's a distinct lack of parity between client platforms. Although you need the desktop native app to manage browser extension security, there's a bunch it can't do. For example, after importing my legacy data, I needed to select all the contents of my LP shared folders and move them to the BW organization collection, but the native app (which seems to be an Electron app, btw) doesn't have a multi-select feature; you need to do that in the online web app.

But researching this a bit, I find that it still predates Marx. I find:

Sir William Petty, 1662: "If a man can bring to London an ounce of Silver out of the Earth in Peru, in the same time that he can produce a bushel of Corn, then one is the natural price of the other."

More important, it seems that David Ricardo (a big name in economic history), in 1817 latched onto what Smith had written and states it quite definitively.

Hmmm. Your choice of words here has just sparked a realization for me.

Before you said this, I was completely on board with the original post. But in juxtaposing effort with value, it illustrates that we're basing the idea on the Labor Theory of Value. That idea seems intuitive, and Adam Smith wrote about it 250 years ago. But it turns out that LTV is very wrong. Economists showed that effort does NOT impart value.

It really does break both ways. Over-reacting to perceived threats has a cost too.

Warning - semi-political (but hopefully non-partisan) political content ahead: This is the same thing the FDA does with drug approvals. They are overwhelmingly biased toward preventing bad drugs that they prevent access to a lot of things that could help. Studies show that the FDA's difference between up-side and down-side risk costs a lot of lives on net. For example, the FDA delayed the approval of beta-blockers (used to prevent second heart attacks) for several years after they were widely available and saving lives in Europe. Analysts estimate that this delay alone cost tens of thousands of American lives.

Sometimes, accepting a risk provides the greatest net benefit.

But we've also got to factor in

A) How likely is it that this bomb is going to have some bluetooth component? It seems like needless complexity, so we should weigh strongly against this. Further, it's less likely that our hypothetical terrorist needs to have expertise in this domain as well.

B) How likely is it that he would clearly paint the word "BOMB" on the side of his device (figuratively, of course, since this is digital)? That's amazing levels of stupidity. And then intersect that with the claim that he's competent in all the other things (bomb making, sneaking through security, making a bluetooth trigger for his bomb) but is so incredibly stupid that he'd label it a bomb.

Factoring all of this in, godelski is being far too generous in assessing this with odds similar to finding the winning Powerball ticket outside the front door while simultaneously being hit by lightning.

I acknowledge that the airline captain has some responsibility for our security. But part of this responsibility is being a steward for our overall well-being. And in this case, the "security" aspect is so vastly overwhelmed by the damage it did to passengers in other ways, that it was obviously a bad call on the captain's part.

It's not just about effort. I must do the liquid prep due to my Crohn's disease. And while I am able to get the liquid down (as you note, it helps to make it as cold as possible; also, suck on an ice cube before drinking to numb the taste buds), I can't keep it down. Within an hour it has me evacuating from both ends.

For my last test, I barely slept at all the night before on account of the vomiting, and even once I got to the hospital I was lying on the wonderfully cold tile of the floor between rolling over to vomit in a trash can.

They know it affects me badly, but still assess that it's necessary due to my risk factors. And because I'm losing much of the drug due to the vomiting, the prep is poor, so I have to start fasting a day early to ensure that I get sufficiently cleaned out. It's torture all around.

But on the other hand, the timing (having seen over the past week or so several articles about the most disastrous IPCC model now having become implausible) makes me wonder if some individual actors are thinking they need something to shore up their disaster prophesying.

With copyright and patent, the creator of the work is being protected. But with trademark law, it's not about protecting the content of the IP as such. It's about protecting the consumer from being misled into thinking they're getting the real thing.

And given the guitar market at large, with about ten thousand different guitars in the general shape of a Strat, it's pretty much universally known that the name on the headstock is what you have to look at to differentiate. So long as that name isn't misleading, I have a hard time imagining how they could make a case of it.

I mean, if the headstock says "Fernando Stratoblaster" or something, then MAYBE it's a little confusing. But my guitar, a Kramer Focus 6000 looked very nearly identical to a Strat (the edges are less beveled, the headstock is pointier, but at a quick glance...), but it quite clearly says that it's NOT a strat. Nobody's going to be fooled despite the striking similarity in shape.

And yeah, I'm a big fan, too. I still have the CDs for it, and it still runs in Windows 11!

And Visual Basic programmers would ... do whatever it was that Visual Basic programmers did.

We were being a well-behaved MS shop at this point. The new generation of our website was designed with a distributed component architecture being called from ASP (Active Server Pages) using DCOM. We implemented it in C++ using ATL (iirc) to facilitate the COM interfaces. The thing was, even with that help, our actual business logic was absolutely overwhelmed by all the annoying casting back-and-forth between those IUnknown values and C++ native types. It was really annoying.

This was around the timeframe of VB 5, I think, and we discovered that we could write the same logic in VB without all the annoyance. Putting aside our "serious developer" C++ elitism, we were actually productive in doing it all in VB instead of C++, and that generation of the system lasted for a bunch of years. We eventually replaced that with an ASP.Net design in C#, which was a whole lot more manageable.

> It's $4, the reviews are good, just buy it.

Yeah, $4 isn't relevant. What is relevant is the time investment, which your response ignores.

The tools lacked the visual GUI builder of VB, but really, that's just a detail. The rest of the framework was really quite powerful, and a GUI builder could have been added. But in true IBM fashion, they had no idea how to market something that wasn't mainframe targeted, and they killed the project. There was a fair amount of acrimony on internal forums about this at the time.

I recently read Jordan Mechner's The Making of Prince of Persia, and while it was interesting, it wasn't what I'd hoped for. It was a biography covering his life during the creation of the game, and very little about the internals and technology of it. That's fine, but for my tastes, the book that it really was, was less captivating than it could have been.

My default is to expect the same from the FoxTales book.

Windows did include other BASIC-related stuff, like GW-BASIC, QBasic, and VBScript.

In addition, an economic theory can only be useful if the actions that they dictate can actually be put into practice; if nobody's going to follow what the theory tells you to do, then it's of little use at all.

This is the big problem with both MMT and Keynesianism: they're both great figleafs for politicians to wear when they want to spend in order to pander. But when the theory tells them that the situation has changed and they need to change their actions accordingly, they don't heed the need to raise taxes (MMT) or slash spending (Keynes).

Unless we really do the thing, then pointing at a given macroeconomic theory is just an excuse.

Right. The theory says you can (should?) spend until you hit the "inflation ceiling," then use taxes to drain liquidity.

But what we saw in 2020-2022 was that we hit the ceiling at 100mph. The "tax it away" solution proved to be a political fantasy. No politician is going to hike taxes on the middle class to cool down the price of eggs.

My understanding (I'm not an economist) is that MMT is currently viewed as a "fair-weather theory." It explained why we could spend during a liquidity trap, but offered no viable steering mechanism once the engine overheated.

In my mind, this puts it in the same box as Keynesianism. Both theories are politically convenient because they offer politicians an excuse to pander. But those politicians aren't willing to do what their pet theory would require once the emergent crisis has passed.

Sorry for the tangent, but this is a pet peeve of mine. From my perspective, it seems like our modern quest for safety in all things has the effect of wrapping the whole world, and ourselves, in bubble wrap. The goal seems to be to extend that number as far as possible, without regard to how the life that we experience during that period is diminished by all the safeguards.

It bothers me that we've made it a mantra, telling each other "have a safe trip", or "be safe", and so on. I can't remember anyone saying "have the richest experience you can manage".

I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread that this is the opposite of how the real world works.

In actual fact, people who need software built hire a tool (e.g., a software developer like me) to build it for them. That tool - me or you - has inside it a tremendous library of copyrighted works represented. I've worked on enough different projects over the decades that the next CRUD function, or rule-driven data-entry tool, or whatever, that I build is going to draw very significantly from the last ones I built. And those last ones were copyrighted, with those rights held by my employer at the time, and maybe even protected by NDA or defense-style classifications.

Is your position that this is OK so long as it's stuff that I can keep in my squishy brain, but the moment that mechanism moves to silicon, it somehow becomes fundamentally different?

The other major argument I see in this thread is that for LLMs it's different because there's a third party who is aggregating the data, and selling me (or my employer) use of that tool. But this doesn't change the overall picture at all. It just adds one more layer of dereferencing into it. The addition of that middleman hasn't altered the moral landscape: how is hiring me, along with what's in my memory, different from hiring the combination of me plus a helper to supplement my memory? There's an aspect of scale, I suppose. With that helper I can achieve greater quantities, but it's not changing the story in a qualitative way.

There's also a TON of irony here. What an about face it is, for the community at large* to switch from "information wants to be free, we support copyleft and FOSS" to leaning so heavily on an incredibly conservative reading of IP law.

It's pretty likely that I've done the same thing. I mean, I've written enough CRUD functions in my life, for example, that in all likelihood I'm regurgitating stuff that's a copy, for all practical purposes, of stuff I've done before as work-for-hire for my employer. I'm not stealing intentionally or consciously, but it seems quite likely that it's happening. And that's probably true for many of you, at least that have been in the industry for a while.

It turns out that's false. We know that genes are patentable; remember back during the Human Genome Project, when there was such a rush to patent them? So genes are IP. (This seems bizarre to me, since they're patenting something that was found just sitting there, but this is what the system says right now.)

Well, two other humans (aka mom and dad) did create me, based on those patentable genes (and most likely including some genes that were, in fact, patented).

I'm not sure what to conclude from all of that, but I do think that it invalidates your argument.

As a developer, the fact that my source code passed through a compiler - an automated tool - doesn't give the author of the compiler any claim on my executable code.

As an artist, the fact that I used, e.g., Rebelle to paint a digital painting, or that I used Lightroom (including generative AI to fill, or other ML/AI tools to de-noise and sharpen my image) in editing a photograph, doesn't give EscapeMotion, Adobe, or Topaz, any claims to my product.

Why, then, would there be any chance that use of a tool like Claude - a tool that's super-advanced to be sure, but at the end of the day operates by way of a mathematical algorithms - would confer any claims to Anthropic?

If a court later found the codebase was predominantly AI-authored and therefore not copyrightable

Is figuring out the appropriate prompts to use in directing Clause qualitatively different than using a (much) higher-level abstraction in coding? That is, there was never any talk as we climbed the abstraction layer from machine code to assembly to Fortran or C to 4GLs to Rust etc., that the assembler/compiler/IDE builder would have any ownership claim on the produced executable. In what sense can Anthropic et al assert that their tool, which just transforms our directives to some lower-level representation, creates ownership of that lower-level representation?

I honestly don't understand why the attitude that underlies this is so prevalent.

When I write code, what I write and how I write it is informed by having read countless source code files over my education and my career. Just as I ingest all that experience to fine-tune how my later code is written, so does the LLM from the code it's seen.

The immediate retort to that is that the LLM is looking at code that wasn't its to read. But I don't think that's a valid objection. Pretty much by definition, everything I've learned from has a copyright on it, and other than my own code on my own time, that copyright is owned by someone else. Much of the code that's built up my understanding has been protected by NDA, or even defense-department classifications: it wasn't mine in any way. But it still informs how I do all my future coding.

By analogy: I'm also an artist, especially since my retirement. My approach to photography was influenced by Ansel Adams, and countless other artists whose works I've seen displayed in museums, or in publications and online. My current approach to painting was inspired by Bob Ross and others, and the teachers who have helped me develop. I've taken pieces of what I've seen in all their work, and all of that comes out in my photos and paintings, to varying degrees.

I've taken ideas from others in code and in art, and produced something (hopefully!) different by combining those bits with my own perspective. I don't think anyone has a claim on my product because of this relationship.

Likewise, I know that many of my successors have learned from my code (heck, I led teams, wrote one book about software development!). And I hope that someday my artwork has developed to the point where there's something in it that's worth someone else's attention to assimilate. I've never for a minute - even decades before the advent of LLMs - hoped or even imagined that my work would remain locked up with me, and that the ideas would follow me to the grave.

As they say, we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. None of us would be able to achieve the tiniest fraction of what we have, without assimilating what has come before us. Through many layers of inheritance it's constantly being incorporated in subsequent works.

In a few decades at best, I'll be dead. It probably won't be very long after that when people even forget my name. But the idea that something I've done - my work in developing software systems, or in my photography and painting - will continue to have ripples through time, inspires me and gives me hope that I'll have some tiny shred of immortality beyond my personal demise.

Under Jobs, UX was king. Devices had to be intuitive, and features discoverable. Today, all that user-friendliness is gone. The devices are no longer approachable for a newbie: you have to just know how to use them.

There are plenty of potential photographs that even modern sensor (or film) technology just can't do, like with questions of dynamic range. There are opportunities for cleaning up noise and sharpening to create a technically-better image. There are reasons beyond count for compositing of different kinds.

But most importantly, supporting the artist's efforts to achieve their vision is the whole point. If someone vision can't be achieved either with their physical toolset, or with their suite of tools, why should they limit themselves?

Others have responded about dynamic range and HDR, and that's one area where a particular feature set is necessary for certain kinds of photography.

Astrophotography and macrophotography both very nearly require focus-stacking abilities.

There's certainly a lot of photography you can do with just a camera, or with just a camera and very basic editing tools.

But having advanced tools opens up a whole world of possibilities. Those aren't all going to be things that everyone wants or needs to do. But there's a huge number of artists who will want or need some of them.