hnfong

You can't really profit from proving theorems of applied problems (that are widely regarded to be true). Those who need to apply those theorems on real problems would have already done so (and if they don't work in some cases, well, congratulations... you found the counter example!)

Everyone is selectively ignoring IP.

For example, let's not pretend the frontier AI labs aren't violating copyrights on a massive scale.

There have been other subtle examples of US companies being cavalier as to IP over the years, but courts (and the US government) have pretty much allowed companies to do so without so much as a wrist slap.

> curl | bash scripts all define a function and then call it on the last line. This is a non issue in the real world.

Please take a look at this before making any assertions... https://github.com/omlahore/RemoveMacAI/blob/main/install.sh

I posted my original comment based off my pre-existing knowledge, but here's a more in-depth explanation of the macOS and FreeBSD situation (which aligns with my understanding):

https://www.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/1g07sdm/comment/lr...

Essentially, macOS was indeed based on NeXTSTEP originally, but over the years they copied quite a bit of BSD code over (mostly FreeBSD I think). I don't think the Unixy parts of the original NeXTSTEP survives much in modern macOS.

Double dash long options are basically a GNU extension. BSD utilities generally don't support them. Apparently macOS does not either (since it's based off of FreeBSD)

If people are assigned a "gatekeeping" position, they should at least be expected to be able to tell great minds from crack pots. (As opposed to just blindly applying a statistical filter)

Otherwise why not just replace them with a script (or these days, an AI)

It's hilarious that this discussion thread is literally repeating the meme joke in 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs

At the level of monarchs, personal physical strength rarely matters regardless of gender anyway. Occasionally it is useful to be able to overpower an adversary in a fight, but that's only either when you risk being assassinated, or you want to assassinate somebody else. Other than those situations, it's just political games all the way. (And like another commenter says, it's usually not "beautiful")

Now you're pulling facts out of your non-lawyer pocket like it's actually (universally) true.

Which jurisdiction? Under what circumstances? Who enforces these purported rules?

I don't need to ask whether you're a lawyer, you're simply out of your depth I'm afraid.

Can we fix the title? This is clickbait for HN, the actual article's title is "Unsealed Briefs in Authors’ Case v. Microsoft/OpenAI: Top Execs Knew Their Mass Book Piracy Was Illegal And Would Put Authors Out of Work"

> And the problem with the first one is that as more and more people want to do that, who is going to work for them? the opressed youth :)

If only youth unemployment isn't a serious issue in modern societies.

In reality, maybe AI robots.

That's the question the article was trying to answer.

>>> "If you don't allow firms to hire immigrant workers, they just become smaller firms," Lewis said. "They are not replaced with US workers. Instead, the output of the firm shrinks, and there are fewer total workers."

So, no, if they had no choice they just shrink their operations, it seems. The apparent conclusion is that immigration bans will just force those companies to reduce operations or shut down, instead of paying higher wages to locals.

The context is literally the line quoted from the article, which made it reasonably clear what the word was supposed to mean, and you decided that (1) you understood what they meant, and (2) deliberately tried to bring up an alternative meaning and object to it, and (3) continue arguing why (2) was justified by taking the sentence out of its context (and into your hypothetical context).

> if phishing attacks were more common and more damaging than lockout

The calculus changes if the service is a bank or your stock broker, which, if you are in any reasonable jurisdiction, if you can prove your identity (in court) they are legally obliged to ensure they give you back your money.

But, for the vast majority of other internet services... I honestly don't think anyone would want to MITM my instagram account for example.

Nothing survives the xkcd 538 wrench attack.

Yeah, you're absolutely right.

I'm surprised there's no actual commie coming out and claiming the end of capitalism is near. (except maybe me in my personal socials, only larping as a hobby)

I'm toying with the idea that until people realize capitalism is based on an increasingly invalid assumption that "things are scarce", the capitalist-ish economical system will eventually realize that the only scarce things are new, fun and creative ideas, and slowly value them more and more, which kind of might work out if nothing drastic happens between the times of transition.

Main issue would be impending lack of iOS updates, together with increased risk of zero-days due to AI.

It doesn't even have to be actually sinister, eg.

"Let's crawl the social media of prominent mathematicians in this field to see if we can copy/steal any ideas for low hanging fruits"

That actually might get you quite far already.

Sure, you need an OS course, but that's when students should learn C as well.

As much as Steve Jobs was an asshole, at least he didn't invent tools whose only purpose is to kill people...

Like, maybe find a better example?

Yet here you are, posting self-congratulatory comments about how you don't post self-congratulatory things.

IMHO this is even less meaningful/impactful than the comment that you objected to.

This is one of the reasons why most heads of state have legal immunity during the time they are serving.

The card definitely stores the balance. They probably sync the transaction records to their servers, but during the transaction the value on the card is presumed to be the truth AFAICT.

Remember when the system was designed in the early 2000s the Internet was much less available and reliable, and when so many transactions happen every day, you don't want to get thousands of passengers stuck inside a metro station only because some Wifi router was down.

This is basically a limitation of the CAP theorem, in these situations there's really no choice but to sacrifice "consistency" and settle for eventual consistency.

I think even credit card payments for transit also make that sacrifice. I had a weird experience using a Visa card to pay for a tram ride because they were promoting it and had a discount. The machine indicated success and let me through, but since I rarely used the card, somehow the payment didn't go through afterwards (the credit card was in a very weird state). If they insisted that all the payment transactions complete successfully for a transit payment, it would be too inconvenient and unreliable to use.

Yes. Thank you for pointing this out.

I think there needs to be a linguist version of "what every programmer needs to know about (full?) text search"...

I'm not a linguist and I don't study languages, but I know enough to realize if a text search system is not designed for a particular language, it simply won't work. (As an example, to implement English search in a system for a hobby project, I had to import a US/UK spelling wordlist, and implement the Porter Stemming Algorithm. This is just for "one" language, and probably does not cover the other "English" dialects. Imagine doing a different workaround for every language in existence...)

RAG is actually a very language-agnostic way to work around those issues.

Alibaba execs probably had PTSD from last time they attempted to defy CCP policy...

> country was founded as the “United States for Anerica”.

Do you have actual sources for that?

(Funny thing, I googled the phrase in quotes, did not realize the misspelling, and was a bit frustrated that the only result was this comment on HN...)

I don't think the law makes a distinction over what tool you use to commit a crime.

The problem with AI is that the AI might do something that would constitute a crime (eg. attempting to land malicious code via a PR), but the general legal standard to convict a person of a crime is malicious intent (or sometimes negligence).

If the human user instructs the AI to do X and the AI does X by committing crimes in the process, the prosecution usually has to prove the human intended this to happen (or is somehow criminally negligent). For traditional tools, the user has much greater control over the tool so the intention can be more easily deduced from the results. For AI, at least for now, results can be wild. I don't think the legal system is prepared to put people in prison because their AI randomly ran amok after being given an innocuous prompt. This is analogous to holding a driver criminally liable for harming people due to a serious malfunction of the vehicle.

If anything, I think more liability should be imposed on AI developers.

Maybe the law doesn't explicitly say that. But it's easier for lawyers for AI companies to argue the case if they destroyed it. "Look, there's only one copy! We didn't make additional copies!"

It's also probably more convenient for them to destroy the books as opposed to trying to find space to store them. Knowing those companies, most likely they'd be just stuffed into some warehouse to rot after a couple years.

Might be weird to make this comment on a YC hosted forum, but cases like these made me realize understand why startups like to bring in "investors" with some political clout.

Not for the money per se, but for... like... "protection".

I mean, of course they're not going to sue Meta (or the other big AI players), but if you're a startup, it probably helps to have someone with influence as an investor so maybe authorities would give your company some slack.