shkkmo

> Also because ideally running a supermarket should give you more money even in a deflationary world.

Running a super market involves owning physical goods for some period of time. With deflation, the price you can sell those goods for drops while you are holding them. In fact most economic activity involves paying for inputs (labor, materials, etc) and then later getting paid for your outputs. Deflation directly impacts profitability and can cause losses.

Since deflation causes demand to drop as economic actors wisely choose to start hoarding currency and buying less, this causes a feedback loop where deflation can spiral.

Similarly, inflation causes demand to increase since holding currency is unwise and it is better to spend or invest that currency than hold onto it.

These two patterns mean that the neutral state (no inflation or deflation) is unstable as any deviation above or below starts a feedback loop until things fall apart. This is the boom and bust economic cycle that modern monetary management is supposed to ameliorate.

Given that you want economic growth, the best solution is to try to stabilize around a small fixed amount of inflation. Arguing for the end of inflation is arguing for the end of economic growth.

> If victims of traffic were made whole then car insurance would be staggeringly expensive and either (1) only extremely rich people would afford to drive or (2) a ton of un-insured drivers would be out on the roads.

This seems like kinda of am extreme prediction. The EU sets much, much higher liability limits and neither (1) nor (2) is true. A gradual roll out would give time for driving habbits and infrastructure to absorb the changes.

Depending on the facts of the case they could indeed be convicted of a crime.

There was a infamous case recently where a woman was convicted of criminally negligent homicide due to owning a dangerous dog that killed a kid.

https://www.mcda.us/index.php/news/portland-area-woman-convi...

Owning a dog that has been trained to bite intrudes is a significant responsibility and owning such a dog without taking the correct precautions is criminal.

I had a very negative view toward toll roads untill I found the Road Guy Rob youtube channel. His video on the Oklahoma toll roads completely changed my perspective.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EzPPmiKFf5I

> we don't want to start to treat digital device and software as living beings.

Right, because then we have to decide at what point our use of AI becomes slavery.

I'm polite in repose to being repeatedly called names and this is your response?

If you think my behavior here was truly ban worthy than do it because I don't see anything in the I would change except for engaging at all

> What kind of bullshit argument is this? Really? Works created using illegally obtained copyrighted material are themselves considered to be infringing as well.

That isn't true.

The copyright to derivative works is owned by the copyright holder of the original work. However using illegaly obtained copies to create a fair use transformative work does not taint your copyright of that work.

> Even if not, you agree that they infringed on copyright of something close to all copyrighted works on the internet and this sounds fine to you?

I agree that they violated copyright when they torrented books and scholarly arguments. I don't think that counts at "close to all copyrighted works on the Internet".

> The consequences and fines from that would kill any company if they actually had to face them.

I don't actually agree that copyright that causes no harm should be met with such steep penalties. I didn't agree when it was being done by the RIAA and even though I don't like facebook, I don't like it here either.

[flagged]

> You seem set on conflating "training" an LLM with "learning" by a human.

"Learning" is an established word for this, happy to stick with "training" if that helps your comprehension.

> LLMs don't "learn" but they _do_ in some cases, faithfully regurgitate what they have been trained on.

> Legally, we call that "making a copy."

Yes, when you use a LLM to make a copy .. that is making a copy.

When you train a LLM... That isn't making a copy, that is training. No copy is created until output is generated that contains a copy.

> The problem is that it's not the user of the LLM doing the reproduction, the LLM provider is.

I don't think this is legally true. The law isn't fully settled here, but things seem to be moving towards the LLM user being the holder of the copyright of any work produced by that user prompting the LLM. It seems like this would also place the enfringement onus on the user, not the provider.

> If someone hires me to write some code, and I give them GPLed code (without telling them it is GPLed), I'm the one who broke the license, not them.

If you produce code using a LLM, you (probably) own the copyright. If that code is already GPL'd, you would be the one engaged in enfringement.

This is a stance that violates tha guidelines of HN.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You keep conflating different things.

> We have evidence of LLMs reproducing code from github that was never ever released with a license that would permit their use. We know this is illegal.

What is illegal about it? You are allowed to read and learn from publicly available unlicensed code. If you use that learning to produce a copy of those works, that is enfringement.

Meta clearly enganged in copyright enfringement when they torrented books that they hadn't purchased. That is enfringement already before they started training on the data. That doesn't make the training itself enfringement though.

> If I had a photographic memory and I used it to replicate parts of GPLed software verbatim while erasing the license, I could not excuse it in court that I simply "learned from" the examples.

Right, because you would have done more than learning, you would have then gone past learning and used that learning to reproduce the work.

It works exactly the same for a LLM. Training the model on content you have legal access to is fine. Aftwards, somone using that model to produce a replica of that content is engaged in copyright enfringement.

You seem set on conflating the act of learning with the act of reproduction. You are allowed to learn from copyrighted works you have legal access to, you just aren't allowed to duplicate those works.

> You’re conflating ideas to make a point

I am talking specifically about the ideas you are disputing:

>> partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects.

I haven't conflated anything. You may be confused and think we're talking about ownership or physical access though.

> you will have no problem citing a huge count of cases where lawyers do not respect their obligations towards the courts and their clients...

There are almost 2000 disbarments annually in the US.

The california bar recieves 1 compliant for every 10 law licenses in the state every year.

There's a wikipedia page on notable disbarments.

Legal malpractice suites are on the rise.

If you are going to assert that legal malpractice is not legitimate concern, I think the burden of evidence is on you.

And it is still a lock if it was just hanging there and not actually locked as in this case.

Amazon's echo and other such IoT devices do extend this to "houses" but isn't quite as ubiquitous.

> judge's reduction it to a book equivalence is misleading and weakens the judgement

Good thing that isn't what happened. It is called an "analogy" and is not a factual statement of equivalence.

> None of my house, papers, or effects are owned by anyone but myself.

Do you self host your own email? No? Those are "papers" that your email hosting provider can consent to providing law enforcement access to without a warrant.

Do you use search engines? Your search history is in the same boat with the search engine company.

Don't use a VPN? All of your internet traffic is in the same boat with your ISP

You use a VPN? All your internet traffic is in the same boat with the VPN.

The list goes on and on. It is almost certainly true that some company has private information about you that they can turn over without a warrant.

Perhaps if you had examples or decisions to explain what you're talkinh about, you would make your point better?

As is, you are being politely called out as incorrect because you are asserting someone people don't believe and not providing any argument, evidence or justification.

I guess that's why most computer games don't have NPCs...Oh wait there's entire computer games built entirely around interacting with synthetic NPCs.

There are, of course, limitations to synthetic characters. Even with those limitations there are plenty of entertaining experiences to crafted.

The real challenges are around maintaining and safely operating automous robots around children in a way that isn't too expensive. These constraints place far more limits than those on synthetic characters in video games.

> Usually HN univocally complains about Apple‘s dominant App Store.

There is a strong population on HN that dislikes walled gardens. In my experience there are also plenty of people who disagree. There's also a large population that doesn't like EU tech regulations.

The ratio between different parts of the HN population can change significantly depending of stuff like time of day and headline draw. I don't find it particularly surprising, it isn't like HN is a monolith with internally consistent views across the entire population.

It's so obvious that I stated it in my comment...

I can't quite follow your comment.

If you have a predetermined number of things that can be "searched" for, that is a filter box, not a search box. Even if you want to stretch the semantics and call it a search box, it is still a solution that only works for a very small subset of the search box problem space. Your criticism that this semanically stret hed snall subset wasn't explicitly excluded is just silly.

> There’s little reason to avoid prescribing medication alongside other approaches.

There absolutely are downsides and risks. There is a reason the SSRIs carry a "blackbox" warning for youths due to increased suicide risks. There's a reason they should only be used under supervision of a doctor and need to be tapered off of.

That is not to say they aren't useful and necessary for some/many people but they aren't and shouldn't be a catch-all treatment.

A routine request for information is not shutting down a merger and presenting it as such is not good faith communication.

The standard invoker commands deal with the display of already loaded page content in the DOM.

HTMX deals with loading content into the DOM, not managing display of the DOM.

They serve two different roles and together should handle the majority of javascript framework use cases.

Web Components does cover some of the same use case as HTMX, but is intended for when a server is returning data rather than HTML. It is both more powerful and more complex.

> the specific example of just having a search box autocomplete can actually be fulfilled with a datalist element. It won't dynamically re-query results, but it will filter based on input. So it's a muddy example, at best, and that's probably not great for the point trying to be made.

A prefilled list is never an acceptable solution for a search box. A search box is meant to capture arbitrary input. A filterable datalist is not a search box.

> The article has a lot about how they're struggling for money.

Not really. The closest it comes is briefly mentioning some 2024 layoffs.

What the article is discussing is revenue diversification.

> Which is a constant issue for Mozilla.

No, Mozilla has had a consistent and growing revenue stream from Google.

> Which a big reason for that is the low browser share.

In what way? Software development costs have been less than half Mozilla's annual revenue for over a decade.

> He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission.

This isn't a direct quote, but voy does the Author of that article not inspire confidence by the way this is worded. "It feels off-mission" should be "It would be antithetical to everything Moxilla standa for". The way this is phrased it feels like Mozilla explored this and decided that the 150 million wasn't worth the reputation hit (yet.)

Edit: I do suspect that the lack of revenue diversity led to product decisions that favored their paying customer's and prevented the types of browser innovation that would have competed more successfully for market share against that paying customer.

The HDMI Forum isn't "most people", it's a non-profit run by some of the largest companies in the space that self describes this way.[1]

I think it is reasonable to complain when "someone" is being so hypocritical and arguably engaging in anti-competitive practices. How do the crazy NDAs in any way server the self stated mission of the forum?

> [1] https://hdmiforum.org/about/

Chartered as a nonprofit, mutual benefit corporation, the mission of the HDMI Forum is to:

    Create and develop new versions of the HDMI Specification and the Compliance Test Specification, incorporating new and improved functionality
    Encourage and promote the adoption and widespread use of its Specifications worldwide
    Support an ecosystem of fully interoperable HDMI-enabled products
    Provide an open and non-discriminatory licensing program with respect to its Specifications