dkuntz2

I think all their recent layoffs show that nobody uses oracle, and the data centers for open ai are their last best hope for future revenue.

Nobody picks oracle anymore, and everybody who's using oracle wishes they were off it and is working on projects to detach themselves from paying oracle heaps of money for software that's no better than open source alternatives.

it doesn't need to. the agent operates on your behalf, you are ultimately responsible.

that is a specific legal fiction that has both historical precedent, and can and frequently is disregarded by courts based on the circumstances (the piercing of the corporate veil).

there is no fraud here, you actively prevented the file from being deleted.

it seems like he likely can't just fire all the board members, as some seats may be contractually required to be held by his investors, as part of funding agreements

it doesn't seem like they want apple's ai secrets, they want apple's electrical engineering secrets for building physical devices

at a previous job something we impressed on to people was you should not use work laptops for personal business, not because we want to go trawling through your personal stuff, but because if your work laptop becomes discovery material for legal proceedings, do you really want that lawyers you don't know digging through your personal email?

(relatedly, we told people not to sign into work stuff on personal computers because then they might have to turn over those computers for discovery)

especially in the tech industry, where you get paid more than enough to buy your own personal laptop

it also seems highly unlikely that dhh would even reach out to asahi to ask

no they shouldn't, if openai cannot survive on its own, it should die.

i'm not sure you can call the ethos of "f8 and be there" cheating when it's how every major street photographer operated

the author made the assumption that these speaking machines are actually thinking machines with any sort of interiority and capability for novel thought, something these explicitly are not and cannot do.

it's called less wrong because they're still always wrong

the why is quite easy, because we are not worthy of having a say in our own governance according to them, so that they may better exploit us

> this proves that Codeberg may in the future ban any project

as is their right, they're providing this service to you free of charge, if they don't like how you're using their service they are free to remove it.

i give a lot of software dedicated user accounts, it's literally one of the core security models of the operating system

sound doesn't really tell you about quality issues, quality issue are more does it have any fret ends that cut into your fingers as you move up and down the neck, are any of the frets too high and causing buzzing, does it maintain its pitch or do you frequently need to re-tune it, is it well setup from the factory, are the strings too high, things like that.

Making two guitars sound similar, especially if the goal was that these guitars should sound similar, isn't all that hard. But also just because they're both the same style of guitar, doesn't mean the goal was for them to sound the same. Even just looking at Fender's line up, different strats have different pickups which are designed to sound different

Everything Fender's CEO said in that meeting was a lie to appease retailers

That's why they aren't trying this in the US (yet), where the bodies were explicitly declared public domain. They're trying to turn a default judgement into something bigger in the EU.

Leo Fender patented the Strat design, the body became public domain when the patent expired in I think 1965. More recently a US court ruled that only the headstock design of a guitar remains intellectual property, because there's really only so many ways to design the body of a guitar

The real change is that the private equity owners also recently bought reverb.com, and must've seen the numbers showing that people aren't buying as many new fenders as they are other brands, and because the only thing they know how to do is extract money from people by destroying rather than creating, they went down this super obvious PE playbook

"progressive"

100% issue a chargeback

whoever keeps posting this dweeb needs to stop he's never had a correct or novel thought in his life.

it's only like everybody who isn't a rube who always falls for "think of the children" has been saying this since all these new proposals and laws started coming back

eric schmidt hasn't written code in several decades, i'm not sure why anyone should give anything he has to say on the topic any amount of weight

it will literally never do that.

This is why the materials from Fender keep trying to emphasize that the strat shape was an explicitly creative decision and not a functional one, because if it's primarily a functional design, they've got nothing (see how there's only so many ways to design a shovel, you can't sue someone for copying your shovel design)

suing US manufacturers who sell in the EU, because they can't sue someone for selling a strat shaped guitar in the US, the shape was declared public domain in the US twenty years ago

it's yet to be proven that they are right, the only thing they won in the german court is a default ruling because they picked a defendant who they knew wasn't going to show up so they could get a default ruling. The actual merits of the case have yet to be tried.