It is true that it amounts to the same number of words, so why would it look more like a wall of text when the text is narrower? Perhaps it has to do with the number of lines?
126 karma · joined February 25, 2025
> Shinwell also consulted AI regarding the copyright, which told him that “I conclude that no code was copied from oxcaml” and gave reasons. Unconvinced, maintainer Gabriel Scherer said “the fact that the tool that produced the code attributes its copyright to a real human is a clear sign that something is an issue.”
This is inaccurate, Mark Shinwell didn't participate to the discussion, and if he somehow consulted AI, it is not mentioned anywhere in the discussion. Actually, the AI analysis was performed by the PR submitter.
The topic of the article has been discussed in another HN submission:
Likely because:
- it's an older culture than unit testing
- people write shell scripts for one shot tasks, or to automate tasks which are system setup/configuration specific
- if a shell script becomes useful enough, it gets rewritten in a more apt language
I suspect they chose that name because of the proximity with the word "cloud".
- the explicit interfaces for modules used in hardware design _are_ types. - hardware design requires extensive testing and verification, and formal verification (using types) is a valuable step in hardware design.
I think the author conflates the use of types with structural complexity - at least at the introduction of his article, hence the term "symptom" used to qualify type checking in the title (actually _lengthy_ type checking, this is implied, but without context the title of the article becomes clickbait-y).
Indeed, by the end, the author admits that types are useful, without conceding that the initial idea was an error of judgment.
The other company doesn't have consumer either with this name, so why should the trademark be revoked? And if it had, shouldn't it be guilty of trademark infringement?
I could see the reason if there's no evidence of (constructive) work being done (so a clear indication of someone holding on the trademark, ie. squatting, IIRC).
Now, if I had a forward looking business spirit, I could perhaps conceive the idea on combining a hobby of mine with trademark squatting to masquerade it, so perhaps this isn't so strange after all.
Perhaps I have the wrong idea of what it means to do trademark squatting, or did I misunderstand your point?
I don't have an answer to your question, which seems more general and doesn't correspond to the situation described by the article anyway: here the corporations have the right to use copyrighted materials to train their model, in the same way that you are allowed to learn from the same materials. You might even learn it by heart if you want to, but copyright laws forbid you from reproducing it, and in this instance the Japanese law tries to follow the same principle for AI models.
How should the corporations implement their training to prevent their models to reproduce the material verbatim is their problem, not the copyright holder's, in exactly the same fashion if you learn an article by heart, it's on you to make sure you won't recite it to the public.
I don't know how large is framework's market, nor how deep their pockets are, which condition their ability to produce 2 different models.
It's clear that a modular design is preferable, hopefully once a standard emerges they will use it in their next devices. Perhaps framework will help in that process, but I don't know if they can afford to put up with the initial costs, particularly in a market they don't have a strong foothold yet.
This was also my first thought when discovering this new model, but I think it was a pragmatic design decision.
The questions you should ask yourself are:
- which upgradable memory module format could be used with the same speed and bandwidth as the soldered in solution,
- if this solution exists, how much would it cost
- what's the maximum supported amount of ram for this CPU
> Unpredictable window focus behavior that can interrupt workflows
Which isn't exactly the same issue, so indeed it doesn't need to control focus.
Careful with those numbers.
In the case of an if like in your example, no provision is made about the existence of x. It could have been defined earlier, and this line would simply update its value.
Your example:
if True:
x = 5
print(x) # 5
x = 1
if False:
x = 5
print(x) # 1
if False:
x = 5
print(x) # ???
While investigating this question, I tried the following:
x = 3
try:
raise Exception()
except Exception as x:
pass
print(x) # <- what should that print?Is there any chance this would cause trouble though? Furthermore, what would be the need of having this variable accessible after the except block? In the case of a for block, it could be interesting to know at which point the for block was "passed".
So, maybe "None" answers your question?
It's not that odd, since it's the only situation where you cannot keep it bounded, unless you enjoy having variables that may or may not be defined (Heisenberg variable?), depending on whether the exception has been raised or not?
Compare with the if statement, where the variable in the expression being tested will necessarily be defined.
As for what I said, I was just mimicking the comment of GP, which I'll quote here:
> The internet actually enabled us to do new things. AI is nothing of that sort. It just generates mediocre statistically-plausible text.
That being said, the author is perhaps concerned by the growing amount of collecting process, which carries a toll on his server, and thus chose to simply penalize them all.