tailspin2019

Were those repos always private?

> "Both were deleted last year and both were private"

I'd really like to know if they were ever public at any point because that might explain it.

None of my repos that have always been private are included (apparently).

That's not to say I'm not concerned by this...

From one of the comments on that post:

> I work for github. This post was shared in our slack, on a non work related channel. We don't think it's us.

> They say they get data from SoftwareHeritage, a website that archives repos from github. If your repos were ever open, they might have been archived there even after you deleted from github.

> That's my best guess.

I really really love Sketch, and for all the reasons that make it different to Figma.

I just hope they don’t go too deep into Figma’esque cloud features (at least without being able to opt out) because Sketch is a really superb standalone piece of Mac software and I appreciate it for that.

It’s quite similar to Omnifocus’ pricing FWIW

My comment was specifically about the use of tens of thousands of copyrighted books which had been pirated and distributed illegally, for which the authors - most of whom receive quite a small amount of money for their work as it is - received nothing and weren’t asked for permission.

There is a very big difference between knowingly downloading and using illegally distributed copyrighted works vs scraping the internet in general.

And if we can’t have copyright any more then we need to work out how to allow authors to make a living, (and musicians, and artists, and indie software developers in fact…)

I agree it’s less clear cut about content that has been willingly posted to the internet but that’s not really what I’m most concerned about.

This is a really interesting framing that I hadn’t thought about before.

You’re absolutely right. It’s very one sided at the moment.

If we follow their ebook usage practice, it’s not even required that they declare it to be open source. Just need someone to publish their copyrighted work online [0] without their agreement and then - per their rules - it’s totally acceptable to download and use those weights with abandon.

Maybe it could be called “weights3”

[0] I’m not actually suggesting anyone should do this.

> But Apple told Ars that Epic Games Sweden's access to a developer account was granted through a "click through" agreement that was not evaluated by Apple management.

I’ve never heard this type of argument before. Presumably Apple considered their “click through agreement” suitable for developers to “click through” and agree to.

I don’t have a horse in this race but I’d definitely like to see this viewpoint discussed more.

The open source angle probably matters more to the HN audience but it’s hard to argue that OpenAI hasn’t “opened up access to AI” to a vast global audience.

And that’s not to say that the means by which they’ve done so doesn’t still need some scrutiny.

FWIW I think you made a good choice with the MBP

Thanks for the explanation - I was just wondering the exact same thing as the parent.

You're probably right, but either way it will be interesting to see this tested in court. I think it's good to have some extra scrutiny over how OpenAI is operating regardless of the underlying motivations that led to the action!

> This is just a smart move by Satya Nadella

Diversifying their AI bets definitely makes total sense. If this wasn't their strategy originally, it almost certainly became so the moment the OpenAI board fired Sam Altman.

It's easy to make simplistic judgements from the outside, but with the limited information we have, it does seem like Satya Nadella came out of this OpenAI debacle looking pretty competent.

It's hard to reconcile the fact that the Microsoft that handled the unexpected OpenAI issue so well is the same Microsoft that seems intent on literally setting fire to their flagship product! (Windows)

> Helps to own your own business or at least work remotely.

I wonder how many ADHDers learnt this during COVID. It may have been the first opportunity for some to experience this and perhaps realise that they can work more effectively in a different environment (which they have more control over).

> When one is diagnosed, and aware of this hyperfocus thing, one can use it very efficiently.

Some can. Others end up in jail [0], or dead [1]. I wouldn't want anyone to assume that if they have ADHD, they automatically have access to some sort of super power - it doesn't always work out like that.

Like you though, I do try to harness this as best as possible for work. Music works quite well as an aid for me too.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/18/uk-prisoners...

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5371172/

Yes, 100%. It's not just "possible"... you're describing exactly what ADHD is like for me. This is one reason why I didn't seek an ADHD diagnosis until later on in life. I didn't understand that it was possible to have ADHD and also be able to "hyperfocus" on certain things.

It's also why I think ADHD is such a badly named condition. You don't have an attention deficit you have an attention regulation deficit - which means sometimes you can have a surplus of attention which you (often) cannot control.

With respect, I find this position quite baffling.

The ability to use your years of experience and hard-earned skills in your particular craft to make something and then have ownership of the thing you made allowing you to make money from that thing, or sell it, should be something we absolutely protect.

It’s a foundational principle behind capitalism and the very startup culture that HN/Ycombinator is built around.

Saying that we should abandon copyright is a bit like saying we should abandon “ownership”.

Too often I see this framing referring to the likes of Disney but this is to ignore the vast majority of individual small creators, who are not huge corporations, and absolutely need the protections that copyright provides in order to make a living from their craft.

Completely agree with this. We lose some of this nuance when we follow Apple’s line of reasoning that it’s a binary choice: safety OR openness.

Good clarification.

Personally I just hope we can remove those “select people” from office before they can actually carry out their plan.

It’s not just distribution. Making unauthorised reproductions of copyrighted work is also copyright infringement.

I take your point that prosecutions are focused more on the sharers than individual downloaders, but OpenAI still infringed copyright by making unauthorised reproductions of the authors’ works (by downloading pirated copies of them).

Totally agree. Though if they follow this to the end then there will at least be a legal precedent to point to for all future piracy prosecutions.

“As shown in Silverman v OpenAI [2024], copyright is no longer enforceable….”

> Though I think that training data is totally a violation of copyright, OpenAI really needs to win.

I’d argue that that’s not really how the law is supposed to work.

Yeah agreed, and also the general direction this is heading in feels a bit strange to me - we can debate the merits of current copyright law - but the indisputable fact is that the training material came from *pirated* copies of these author’s copyrighted works.

If we are to believe the much used arguments against piracy that we’ve been fed over the last 30+ years (mainly by deep pocketed media companies) then piracy is stealing and if you take stolen material and use it to produce a profitable commercial service then surely that’s a clear cut case in favour of the copyright owners?

Otherwise WTF have we been prosecuting individuals for all these years for pirating movies and music etc?

And here’s the injury: the authors did not get paid for their copyrighted work. Whether you agree with the law or not, OpenAI at the very least should have bought a copy of every book they trained on - and that doesn’t even get into the question of whether they even had the right to train on that material even if they had paid for it. They didn’t do that. They used stolen copies instead.

I don’t understand how it could go any other way. I do get the judge’s reluctance to decide that every bit of output of ChatGPT constitutes copyright infringement - that’s much harder to argue.

I’m not passionately against OpenAI - I pay them money - but I am concerned about this “training material” sourcing issue just being swept under the rug.

AI advancements clearly do impact artists, authors and other creators of works… they’ll be even more screwed if we just throw copyright law completely out of the window at the same time.

I’m invoking Oxford Reversal - a bit sneaky I know.

Charing Cross

> some go further still, completely eliminating rulings aroung trackage limits, though at this point they remain quite fringe.

The elimination of trackage limits when influenced by bi-directional Perridale has been pretty mainstream now for a couple of years. I’d hardly call them “fringe” anymore.

Agree on the need for sufficient awareness of forfeiture rules in general though.

Personally I’m warming towards the proposed Eton’s Lisp amendment which does seem to improve some of the issues with deadlocked rounds, especially with larger numbers of players.

If the author is here could I make a gentle suggestion to change “infected with” to something like “potentially vulnerable to”.

“Infected” means something very specific and I think its usage in this case comes off as a bit clickbaity and detracts from the credibility of the article.

The article referenced as the source of that statistic uses more accurate wording (though doesn’t cite its own sources):

> According to various research and studies, up to 50% of websites are vulnerable to DOM Based XSS vulnerabilities.

Also, “Almost 50%” != “up to 50%”

Yep, I’ve never personally seen a problem with this law.

We’ve made plenty of dumb decisions as a country but I’d say trying to keep knives off the streets is not one of them.

It's not difficult to imagine possible threats just by looking at the comparison screenshots alone:

https://blog.lastpass.com/2024/02/warning-fraudulent-app-imp...

How, in the utter fuck, does this get past app review?

It’s not like it’s an edge case either, there are hundreds of apps with obviously and blatantly misleading logos, brands, names etc. Just see ChatGPT / OpenAi for example.

I have taken to sharing direct links to Apps in the app store now when recommending things to non-technical friends/family, because I’ve lost all confidence that they will find the “correct” app anymore just by searching, and not one of hundreds of highly dubious clone apps.

Difficult to argue against the recent actions of the EU when the supposed benefits of the walled garden are crumbling anyway…

I do kind of agree with this, and I definitely resonate with not wanting to have to worry about what I said ten years ago.

But to the degree that HN is "privacy hostile" as you put it, with regards to not being able to delete comments, I'd say that it's also "privacy friendly" to an almost equal degree, given there is absolutely no personal information required in order to create an account.

And there is none of the usual invasive social network crap which drives me away from literally every online platform apart from HN.