apantel

Thanks for the clarification.

> Microsoft using copilot to license-launder the github corpus

Isn’t the game with licenses that you must specify what can and cannot be done with the code? It’s a big issue that no one prior to now had the foresight to forbid ML training on code without attribution. If the licenses going back 30 years had that stipulation then it would be easy to take down Copilot and ChatGPT. But the licenses simply don’t cover the use case of training a neural net, so it’s probably going to slip through the cracks just like SaaS slipped through the cracks of the GPL by not distributing code, hence the need for AGPL. So I’m sure we’ll see these kinds of clauses added to licenses going forward, but they can’t be applied retroactively.

The irony in all this is that from the start, open source licensing has been a game of wits where software creators try to cleverly use copyright as a lever of control. Well, they weren’t clever enough. They missed ML training and didn’t forbid it. As a result they’ve basically lost the whole game.

Ads are unwanted. If you serve ads, you are doing something unwanted to your visitors. So they block the ads, and you get the unwanted effect of not making money. The pain point is not that your ads are being blocked — it’s that you don’t have a way to make money that doesn’t start with doing something unwanted.

This is also what drives people into cults: not fitting into normal social environments, finding some esoteric community where suddenly there is a fit.

That would further increase the need for a single standard.

Nothing you said is truth. Those are just your own blind beliefs. How do you know the universe is meaningless? Maybe it’s a simulation being run for a purpose, and the beings running it care about the outcome. You’re just spouting YOUR truth, which is not truth at all.

The person writing about the thing has to be knowledgeable, correct, and telling the truth.

I just want to make a comment about optimizing applications even though the article is about optimizing organizations:

The way to arrive at the optimal system is to continually optimize all individual components as the system develops. You have to walk the razor’s edge between “premature optimization is the root of all evil” and not optimizing anything until it’s too late and a bunch of bad design decisions have been baked in.

If you want to write the fastest program, profile its performance from the start and try different ways of doing things at each step of the process. There’s usually a way of doing things that maximizes simplicity and performance at the same time because maximum performance == doing as little work as possible to complete a task. Chances are that ‘littlest amount of work’ will be elegant.

The infinite scrolling of the same images over and over again makes it harder to use. You can’t tell how many results you’ve actually received and what they are.

Asking because I don’t know: what is the value proposition of ARM?

Or Linus would have found some other way to have a userspace and we’d still have Linux but with different tools.

The main benefit is you get a rolling two years where no one else can use your code to compete with you. It’s a lot like a patent which gives you a window of time where you have an exclusive right to benefit from your creation.

“GNU” was always crappy branding. Nobody wants to read it or say it or explain it. “Linux” sounds cool. So everyone calls the whole system “Linux”.

The better of the amateurs are as good as professionals.

I’ve been very well-taken care of in AirBnb’s, and I’ve been driven around well in Ubers.

It depends on whether or not those employees were producing more than they cost. It could be that Intel is shuttering unprofitable projects the way Steve Jobs did when he returned to Apple. He killed almost everything Apple was doing and got the company to focus on a handful of products, one of which was the iPod.

Intel’s and the US’s main priority is for Intel to survive as a business over the coming decades and become competitive again. They’re going to do whatever they have to.

That’s not how price works. Price is a function of supply and demand. The cost of goods sold is just part of what goes into price. So if you make something really compelling or scarce that people are willing to pay a lot of money for, you can charge more for it than it costs you to produce it. That’s business.

The concept of generative AI is not disrespectful. You could have generative AI trained on licensed data - would that be disrespectful?

> That being said it always seems like google has had a massively unfair advantage for crawling not only with budget but with brandname, and perceived value.

VCs and other startup culture evangelists are always challenging founders to figure out what their ‘unfair advantage’ is.

That’s the name of the game.

Yeah I’m all for these things that I was calling “vanity”. I was only using the word vanity because the comment I was responding to used it pejoratively: “vanity projects”.

You’re strawmanning. I was caricaturing the call for efficiency by blowing it up into a monster. I wasn’t saying I want to ban fulfillment of desire, or saying that’s the only alternative to the status quo.

The system is not perfectly efficient because humans aren’t efficient. I think the idea is, keeping a market relatively free (with a sane amount of regulation) allows capital to seek returns. This leads to a lot of independent, decentralized value production, like startups popping up out of nowhere because some founders have an idea and attract capital.

The thing is, people who pile up capital don’t have to be efficient with it. They can basically do whatever they want with their money. They can build giant vanity estates, which you could certainly call inefficient — who needs 20,000 square feet for a family of 3? But… we also care about freedom, so we let people do inefficient things. The only difference between rich people and poor people is they have more money so their inefficiencies are louder. But everybody spends money on senseless wants and vanity. Who needs manicures and hair extensions? Arguably nobody. The “poor” spend on vanity too. And we let them because we care about freedom.

If you wanted to implement a perfectly-efficient system, would that mean banning the fulfillment of any desire that wasn’t strictly a need? I don’t think anyone would want to live in such a system.

If labor and capital truly are in tension as so much of our social and economic philosophizing says, then it’s no surprise that a structure optimized for labor is less attractive to capital.

People who want to make money above all else are pursuing that because they think that will make them happy. It’s just their idea of the path that will get them to happiness. They see Mark Zuckerberg wakeboarding at his Lake Tahoe retreat and think, ‘That’s happiness — having billions of dollars, not having to worry about meeting basic needs, being able to do what you want.’

*rewritten in Rust

> What is mystical to follow a procedure?

This is how science destroys wonder instead of inspiring it.

What is mystical is the fact that you exist in the first place, plus everything else. It’s all far out and enchanting.

Well, at least the users will be getting fucked.

Just a design comment: the animated line background takes away from the user experience. It doesn’t add.

No no no, it’s “never update anything and don’t expose your machine to the internet”. Winning strategy right there.

This just in ‘CrowdStrike Strikes Crowd’