papercrane

The article is about the AsynchronousFileChannel class, which I don't think Project Loom affected at all.

Regardless of any future updates, this class will probably always use a thread pool/ExecutorService. It is part of the documented behaviour and API.

> I thought Biden's administration was all about green energy. What gives?

Your complaint should be with the legislative branch, not the executive. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 added requirements on the battery material sources to come into effect 2024. The biggest problem for most EVs is that the act requires the materials not to come from a "foreign entity of concern" (FEOC) to qualify for the rebate. China is designated as an FEOC and most EV batteries have materials from China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act

Hoffman is a big proponent of using one, so I'd assume that he did.

> Congress specifically doesn’t want grandmas getting sued for copying the recipe on the box.

Recipes don't have a specific exception within the the copyright law that Congress has carved out.

It is also not cut and dry. It basically boils down to facts not being copyrightable. So a list of ingredients and basic instructions (e.g. cooking time and temperature) won't be granted copyright protection.

But, the prose in the instructions can be copyrighted. So copying a whole recipe verbatim can be copyright infringement, but copying the list of ingredients and writing out the basic instructions is not.

Java enums are a class with a fixed number of instances.

The thing in Java that is closest to Rust enum's would be sealed classes, which was a preview feature in Java 15 and finalized and released with Java 17.

https://openjdk.org/jeps/409

Based on OpenAI's structure, I would expect his equity would be in the OpenAI holding company, and not OpenAI Global, LLC which Microsoft is a minority owner of and the holding company is a majority holder. The holding company is what employees and investors have equity in.

If Altman had equity directly in OpenAI Global that would be really odd and go against OpenAIs previous disclosures.

https://openai.com/our-structure

My understanding is the OpenAI holding company, which is controlled by the board of directors, owns 51% of the capped-profit company, with Microsoft owning the other 49%. There doesn't seem to be a scenario where Microsoft can buy a controlling interest without the boards approval.

The leases are transferable and renewable. Other than the odd legal arrangement it's functionally not that different than owning land and paying property tax on it.

It depends on how the Vietnam legal system works, but in theory you can enforce a civil judgment across borders.

After winning a judgment, Google would have to go to court in Vietnam and ask for the judgment be enforced. The court would look at wether proper notice was given, the jurisdiction was proper and that the underlying conduct was something you could sue for. They may also look at the award to determine it isn't excessive. If they're satisfied the court can then issue an order to enforce it.

This all depends heavily on how the Vietnam legal system works, which I have no idea. Obviously every country has their own quirks and processes.

We hold tool makers responsible all the time. It all depends on how the tool is meant to be used and how it's marketed.

For example, a voice cloning AI that's marketed and sold for people diagnosed with ALS to clone their voice in case they lose their ability to speak that is misused will not have any legal liability. However, if that same tool is marketed and sold to clone celebrity voices for commercials, then that company is going to have a bad time in court.

You should be able to replace twitter.com with nitter.net

https://nitter.net/javilopen/status/1719363262179938401

Studies like this are important to separate data from anecdotes and conjecture.

There are a lot of comments and conjecture that this will kill drive and increase drug use, but without actual data those are just hypothesis.

It is an interesting question around ethics of studies though. I'd be interested to see the ethics review for this study.

It would either be Waymo or Cruise. There's been viral videos of both blocking intersections, or being disabled with traffic cones.

> Yikes is that really an "FBI informant"?

It pretty much is a textbook definition of an FBI informant. I think the issue is people seem to put some kind of moral value on the term.

That's confusing, because the GitHub repo has an MIT license. Is there some kind of secret sauce they add to the compiled binaries that the non-commercial clause applies to maybe?

If you're using Java 9+ there is an official API to do that. It's the StackWaker class.

https://docs.oracle.com/javase%2F9%2Fdocs%2Fapi%2F%2F/java/l...

Case law in the US is that a computer copying something into RAM is a "copy" under the copyright act, and can be copyright infringement (MAI v. Peak Computer), the issue is whether making that copy is fair use, or otherwise authorized. Joseph P. Liu's "Owning Digital Copies: Copyright Law and the Incidents of Copy Ownership" is a good overview of the issues. I don't believe the law has substantial changed since he wrote the article in 2001.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp....

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol42/iss4/5/

I once worked with someone from Egypt who used "kilo" for kilometers. He's the only person I've met who did that. I've no idea if that was just a personal quirk or if that was a common shortening elsewhere in the world.

I'm pretty sure Google Docs use Operational transformation (OT). Google Docs pre-dates the paper that defined CRDTs. It's certainly possible they've updated their algorithms since then though.

Redis uses them in their enterprise products for active-active distribution.

https://redis.com/blog/diving-into-crdts/

Mono is still a thing, but Jellyfin uses .NET Core, which is a FOSS runtime that Microsoft provides.

You can use it in a commercial product, but if you distribute the commercial product it's going to require you to adhere to the GPL, which obviously has practical implications.

You can use it in an internal product that you use commercially, even if the program interacts with external users (e.g. web server) which is a big reason why AGPL exists.

Although, it's best to aware of what internal tools and software may require GPL distribution. For example it's the position of the FSF that distribution of internal tools to contractors requires adherence to the GPL.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi...

If you're not distributing your software, then yes, it's fine. It's mainly an issue for companies who license their software to other companies.

Even if you don't distribute your software it's good to be at least aware of your bill-of-materials. If your company decides to pivot and start licensing out the software then you want to be able to flag any issues like this quickly.

I wouldn't classify it as "ape shit", but the MySQL connector used to be LGPL. Now that's it's GPL any software that bundles it needs to be GPL as well. I'm guessing that Oracle has contacted some companies about commercial licensing. The alternative is to just use the MariaDB connector, which is still LGPL and is MySQL compatible.

If you read the claims to relief (start on page 44 of complaint) it's mostly just standard copyright infringement during training. The claims about ChatGPT writing works that infringes their works seem to be to be to try and head-off a fair use defense. One of the tests for fair use is the effect on the potential market for original work.

That's what discovery will be for, the complaint alleges that the likely source was libgen. Most of these authors haven't released DRM-free ebooks, and it seems unlikely that OpenAI has a large scale book scanning effort (and even if they did, that authors would likely claim that to be infringement itself.)

The actual complaint is about using their copyrighted works in the training of the LLM without a license. OpenAI is claiming it's fair use, the authors disagree. It's going to take a ruling from a judge to get clarity on the issue, and no matter what it'll be appealed until it hits the SC.

Edit: This comment was for a different headline, doesn't apply anymore.

Terrible headline. They're not suing for theft, they're suing for copyright infringement.

The rest of the article is reasonable, and they link to the complaint, which is something every article about a lawsuit should do.

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/xmvjlbqbnvr/...

That's the plan, but it's not there yet.

> That said, i believe that in the current implementation of virtual threads on the JVM, it is possible that a tight loop that doesn't call any methods will not be rescheduled;

Right now virtual threads that don't enter into any blocking code won't be unscheduled by the JVM.