tumult

My first reply was rebutting that kind of equivalence, then the reply to me was saying that there's no special difference between humans and software. The reply you've replied to is me saying that's crazy.

> How is pressing buttons in photoshop different to pressing buttons in chatGPT?

It's not! That's the entire point. The liability is with the people, not the software. The software isn't being sued! You can't even do that, because the software isn't people. Software isn't humans. The people developing ChatGPT incorporated other people's copyrighted works into their product, and they're the ones being sued.

Assuming that software won't receive legal personhood seems like a pretty good foundation. If that's no longer the case, you have much crazier things to worry about than copyright infringement.

> You're speaking as if it's a given that the issue comes down to software not being people, therefore society as a group can make software do whatever it wants even if it doesn't own it.

Yes. It's an object or writing. Not a person. You're arguing for giving personhood to software right now and that's crazy.

You aren't software. The laws that apply to people reading and learning do not apply to software. Software isn't people. It can't be liable, it isn't taken to court. It can't go to jail, it can't marry, it can't raise a family. Saying that you can legally learn from something by reading it and producing something else, and therefore so should software, is a non sequitur.

What? Did we watch the same video? The opposite is true. A large portion of the video covers the history of notation and how expressive it is. And he specifically doesn't say that an ugly numbering system is the solution. In fact, the opposite.

Outside next to a building is the worst place to be, as debris can detach and fall from the sides and tops of buildings. If you're indoors, stay indoors. Furniture that can fall over or slide around is supposed to already be secured to the wall or floor, but you will probably want to cover under a desk or something, anyway, in case panels or fixtures fall from the ceiling, or glass shatters.

If you're already outside, stay away from the sides of buildings, walls, power lines, etc. You may want to walk out into the middle of the road (seriously): https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/ondemand/video/2084030/

That's not the information that dialog is purporting to display. That's a theoretical thing you've made up for this comment.

Sanity check, not min().

Because the reply was written like this:

> … but I bet even an LLM these days would know and tell you …

The "even" here says that knowledge of the filesystem is basic.

> I'm not one to trust AI much at all …

This part shows that the person replying does not think highly of AIs.

Together: AIs aren't very smart, but they at least know about filesystems and could explain it to you.

> You're making the same mistake if you think that's "incorrect information"

No, that would be a different type of mistake.

> you'd only take some effort to learn instead of complaining because they don't fit your incorrect assumptions

I know exactly why it reports it like this. That wasn't the point of the article, and not the point of my reply.

> You're saying to just not show any size at all if the filesystem contains more data than its capacity, which is basically going to be 100% of the time after enough backups are made? WTF. That makes even less sense.

No, not 100% of the time. But it would be a significant portion of time, yes. The Finder should probably not even try to report the information like this if it's going to be misleading such a high percentage of the time, if Apple is not going to add a better way for users to account for where all of the space on their drives is going.

> I'm not one to trust AI much at all, but I bet even an LLM these days would know and tell you why the total size of all the files on a filesystem can appear to exceed the capacity of the storage device.

I tried to find a way to interpret this other than, "you should just use ChatGPT as a person to talk to, because ChatGPT is smarter than you and could explain to you how filesystems work," but I wasn't able to.

I think that's fair when you consider it all together.

Why does the user care about how many times an iterator passes over an inode? The Finder is reporting incorrect information to them and may lead them to make bad decisions, like buying unnecessary external storage drives. You've missed the point of the article.

No. There is not 60TB of data on the disk, which is what the GUI is reporting in the article. The GUI doesn't say that 60TB of data would exist if the snapshots were each individually flattened and expanded to another filesystem. It says there is 60TB of data filling the disk.

You're making the mistake that you're accusing the article of. Of course the author knows these things. As you just showed. Yet, the Finder GUI still reports bad information. Information that can mislead users into making bad decisions. That's what this article is complaining about. The article is talking about Finder, the GUI. It's showing screenshots. It's not talking about probing for CoW status using CLI filesystem tools. What are regular users supposed to do? A sanity check would at least have the Finder report nothing instead of incorrect information.

I had the opposite experience. Gmail's filter was useless, letting in tons of spam, and then putting normal emails from family members, also using gmail, and who I have emailed many times in the past, into spam. Fastmail's is drastically better for me.

So, they remove it in 12 months and your code wasn't ready for the change, and people mock you for having not been prepared by updating your code. The Python people have told you to remove it, so nobody will have any sympathy for you if you don't do it. As you demonstrated, people are sticklers for quoting exact wording when it comes to criticizing others.

They will be removed:

    datetime.datetime’s utcnow() and utcfromtimestamp() are deprecated and will be removed in a future version.

I haven't heard anything about the updates causing performance problems, but maybe you read something I didn't?

You've also made an assumption. That attack vs. react is is symmetrical. It's not.

It doesn't have to be profitable for them. It can just exist, be the only option, and prevent others from making a competitive or superior product, forcing others out of the business.

On by default.

If you still don't understand: this feature and setting used to not exist. Now it does. And it's on by default. So, it has been turned on for everyone.

This is a thing that used to not exist, and now it exists for everyone using this OS. And they will not know what it is or how to turn it off unless they are told by someone else.

One day, you get into your car and start driving. But the horn honks whenever you press on the accelerator. An angry drivers rolls down their window and yells at you: "What are you, stupid? The car company went into all of the cars last night and modified them. You need to open the trunk and disconnect the 'honk while accelerating wire'! Jeeze, how can you be so clueless?"

The guy bought another Apple laptop, so I don’t know why you think he’s a hater.

Apple is well known for screwing individuals over when applying vague policies, then fixing the situation after the person runs to the press.

It protects the people in the building. Likewise, arresting a serial killer protects anyone they would have killed next.

That's not true. We have things in place to protect people and objects from lightning strikes. For example, lightning protection systems on tall buildings.

Release candidate means it could have gone out as a release. RC2 ended up being the release version.

It was in the release candidate.

It was in the betas, too, and they submitted it as a bug early on, and it wasn't fixed in any of the betas or the first release candidate. This is covered in the article.

What? How is someone who snatched your phone out of your hand and ran away going to know your password and authentication information needed to authorize a parts replacement?

Apple requires “notarization,” not just code signing. If you code sign your app and don’t “notarize” it, it will refuse to run. Like it will be harder for the end user to run it than if you had not code signed it at all. Submitting for “notarization” requires an Apple developer account with an active paid subscription and payment method. You have to upload it to Apple and wait for it to be approved in an asynchronous process which can sometimes take tens of minutes each time.

From news links and comments here on this site, especially around 2018 when Tumblr was going through repeated App Store rejections. I think people, including myself, infer it from this information:

1. Apple executives like Phil Schiller used Twitter for years.

2. Apple bought advertising on Twitter.

3. https://sreegs.tumblr.com/post/671649355334336512/alright-le...