they dont though. nothing about MIT license is granting anyone the ability to misrepresent as the author. thats why its a license and not copyright transfer.
this is completely and totally incorrect. MIT lets you redistribute, copy, and modify. It does not let you take authorship over the original work, even if just by way of changing git history.
no, not at all. in addition, the funding should be spent on organizing that database in a more easily searchable format and system instead of introducing a stochastic prediction engine.
the difference is that code is not something the average person will marvel at over the intricate hand built details. You might get a few nerds interested if it's something super novel (like rewriting a major modern web app without any 3rd party libraries that is 30x more performant), but most people dont care. Extra true for businesses, I can't think of a business other than maybe a mom&pop shop or a place where showing wealth is important where they wouldnt happily issue casio watches far before they would consider a rolex.
i so desperately wish we were still in the days of manufacturers making their own OS. It's why I moved to iphone: when the hardware company makes the software and vice-versa the integration is much better and less error-prone/bloated. It never made sense to me for android to be shoehorned into thousands of devices, instead of a fork being made and for thorough OS rework to happen to support the device.
the moment i see the AI slop writing I stop reading a github repo. Particularly when i know it was just a cobbled together project of others works by AI. Someone put a LOT of man hours into the core project (the brain mapping), the least you could do is put in some effort into this project using their work.
most of their innovations are in stuff that would be boring to go into detail with. They talked about the advancements in their A series processors (but you left that out), they talk about their complex layering to prevent a crease from forming, they talk about the dynamic audio. Love em or hate em but you cant say they arent doing new things.
I'm not the person you are replying to, but the readme is very clearly written by an AI, and it sounds nothing like his older work. Sometimes it's just super clear to people something is written with AI without you getting some sort of singular "gotcha" word or indicator. It's just writing patterns that would be hard to clearly establish rules for here in an HN comment, but it's incredibly obvious when you learn to spot it.
if you were around long enough, you would know that:
A) thats not a rule
B) that was added to the guidelines because people were complaining about article choices.
This has gotta be a troll man. They aren't responsible for poor security measures. They are only responsible for what is outlined in the thing they pay for. I'm gonna mute this thread purely because I'm pretty certain you're trolling for the sake of it. If for some reason you aren't trolling, take a business ethics and responsibilities course, there's some free ones online, or you could talk to a lawyer you might know, either one should help you understand.
that is not correct in the slightest. It would only be your blame if you built and managed the lab. The lab is not US owned or managed, it's up to the lab who claims they can safely work on dangerous viruses to ensure that they keep it contained. They still own and manage and are responsible for the lab, the US just paid them for research. It's no different than the US contracting space onboard SpaceX rockets, the US isn't then suddenly responsible if the rocket misdirects and hits someone's house.
> Modern UX is bad because many front-end programmers fundamentally just do not care about the UX, it's not about the specific tech they use.
This is untrue and is weird misunderstanding on your part. Most of modern UX and UI is designed to fit the needs of the customer for the frontend team/dev: the product or marketing or sales department. The user of the website is very rarely the customer for the dev.
The level of effort is minimal. It's not a quantitative definition, its qualitative. Also absolutely in no way shape or form is it anywhere near the level of decision making of a director. Your average director of some low budget B netflix slop is still making thousands of decisions per day, organizing teams, reading and writing documents, going over shot review with DP's. A director is the CEO of a film production, not some ideas guy. They require and utilize a technical understanding of all parts of the production.
The experts in the sciences usually back their claims up using citations, and can be disproven through the normal methods of disproving citations. not through "vibes"
yes, they would, they still didnt make the coffee though. They would likely get banned from said coffee shop if they then went around the room claiming they made the coffee.
It's the level of effort and involvement (also if you listen to any director talk they will never say "I made", they will say "we made"). Similarly to AI, nobody gives credit to the guy who "thought of the idea for the movie", they give credit to the leadership of the movie who worked alongside the crew. Directors dont just give an outline of a movie and then step away from set, they put real effort in to every aspect.
im so tired of seeing AI writing on articles like this. We've been studying classical art for hundreds of years theres so many resources I beg readers to just pick up one of the countless books or articles written by a human and i beg the "author" of the site to please just write the copy yourself if you are knowledgeable on the topic.
there is a pretty stark difference between independent US companies copying each other and a state backed chinese company taking data and IP from american citizens.
This is weird and reactionary. Lots of organizations are continuing to refuse to use chinese models due to security and IP concerns. Anthropic/american models aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
my only issue is that it cares if you are off by 1 minute, meanwhile in the real world a lot of analog clocks have continuously moving minutes and a lot of others have ticking minutes (they only move right at the minute mark).
Its not essential. Good organization. Good functional configuration. Proper separation. Good variable naming. All of these things are what make it more than easy to work without type declaration. People have been working on huge code bases without types for a VERY long time with no issue, especially in functional paradigms.