You know you can just paste mermaid into excalidraw?
It has a mermaid WYSIWYG editor and once the diagram is inserted you can edit it, move objects, add text just like you had drawn it directly in excalidraw.
I usually enter mermaid and then move things around to my liking rather than drawing from scratch.
You can also paste csv in, it's been a while since I've done it but I think it even generates a chart.
I've had my Kobo Clara HD for almost 8 years and I still use it daily with KOReader.
It's so easy to install KOReader and it's really repairable. I replaced the SD card at one point, and another time I thought it was broken or needed a new battery but came back to life after reseating cables.
Before that I had a kindle and you had to jump through a lot of hoops to install KOreader, and I remember you had to be careful not to upgrade the firmware so it could be jailbroken.
Like I said I've had the Kobo for 8 years, so I hope this is still the case.
KOReader works just as easily, and just as well, on my much newer Kobo Clara BW. I'm not unhappy with the built-in reader software, but keep KOReader installed just in case I want or need it.
Calibre web support, opds catalogue, wallabag, ssh. And it supports so many file formats.
I'd imagine the built in reader has improved a lot over the years, but at the time reading technical pdfs on it was not feasible. KOReader allowed me to rotate to landscape and reflow the pdf text.
I almost got the Clara BW for Christmas, I thought my Clara HD was dead, wasn't sure if it was the battery or screen but it was failing to properly clear and update the screen. Someone actually bought the BW for me but I ended up returning it after I managed to recover the Clara HD.
I was kind of looking forward to the waterproofing, but seems my old one is not yet ready to give up.
There are multiple tiers of missile (and ballistic missile defense).
Especially with ballistic missiles, the longer the range, the faster the inbound warhead will be in the terminal phase (roughly). So longer range ~= faster meaning more difficult to intercept.
"Iron Dome" is the name generally used to describe Israel's lowest tier set of defenses. Very roughly Iron Dome is designed to defend against stuff that you could plausibly fire from the back of a truck, and have a max range of around ~50km.
Very roughly, these were intended to take on something like GMLRS (realistically, massed volleys of unguided rockets) - these are rockets that one or two people could conceivably manhandle, and are traveling in the neighborhood of Mach 2-3. One of the key innovations of Iron Dome is its ability to quickly ascertain and design on which rockets were unlikely to strike valuable areas, and only engage the actually threatening ones.
The next tier up is David's Sling, and then Israel's wider set of high performance anti-ballistic missile systems. Returning the the range <-> speed thing, we'd need something like a medium range ballistic missile to get from Iran to Israel. For something like the Shahab-3, that's like ~Mach 7 during re-entry.
If we step up to IRBMs (so something that China might use to strike at Guam), we're probably talking like Mach 10.
I love digital watches and have a few Casios, including a protrek like the G-Shock he mentions at the end, that syncs to a radio signal and has solar charging.
I switched to a Garmin with oled screen for running, sleep, and Garmin pay. I liked the functionality but hated having to charge it every few days. Especially coming from Casios that you never need to take off your wrist. And I hated having to choose between being able to always see the time at a glance and needing to charge it every day due to always on display.
I recently caved and bought a solar powered instinct 3, with MIP display and I love it. I can go over a month without charging, and without turning off features, and I can always see the screen outdoors, when cycling or doing some activity.
So yeah, the first one was probably just not the right watch for me.
It sounds that way a bit from the one sentence. But that’s not the case at all.
> 4. MODIFICATIONS
> You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release
the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified
Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution
and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy
of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:
Etc etc.
In short, it is a copyleft license. You must also license derivative works under this license.
Just fyi, the gnu fdl is (unsurprisingly) available for free online - so if you want to know what it says, you can read it!
And the judgement said that the training was fair use, but that the duplication might be an infringement. The GFDL doesn't restrict duplication, only distribution, so if training on GFDLed material is fair use and not the creation of a derivative work then there's no damage.
Right. I can publish the work in whole without asking permission. That’s unrestricted duplication.
However, as i read it, an LLM spitting out snippets from the text is not “duplicating” the work. That would fall under modifications. From the license:
> A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
I read that pretty clearly as any work containing text from a gnu fdl document is a modification not a duplication.
1) Obtaining the copyrighted works used for training. Anthropic did this without asking for the copyright holders' permission, which would be a copyright violation for any work that isn't under a license that grants permission to duplicate. The GFDL does, so no issue here.
2) Training the model. The case held that this was fair use, so no issue here.
3) Whether the output is a derivative work. If so then you get to figure out how the GFDL applies to the output, but to the best of my knowledge the case didn't ask this question so we don't know.
For this to stand up in court you'd need to show that an LLM is distributing "a modified version of the document".
If I took a book and cut it up into individual words (or partial words even), and then used some of the words with words from every other book to write a new book, it'd be hard to argue that I'm really "distributing the first book", even if the subject of my book is the same as the first one.
This really just highlights how the law is a long way behind what's achievable with modern computing power.
You’re just describing transformative use. I’m not a lawyer, but an example from music - taking a single drum hit from a james brown song is apparently not transformative. Taking a vibe from another song is also maybe not transformative, e.g. robin thicke and pharrell’s “blurred lines” was found to legally take the “feel” from Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give it Up”
Which is all to say that the law is actually really bad at determining what is right and wrong, and our moral compasses should not defer to the law. Unfortunately, moral compasses are often skewed by money - like how normal compassess are skewed by magnets
Presumably, a suitable prompt could get the LLM to produce whole sections of the book which would demonstrate that the LLM contains a modified version.
I am distrubting an svg file. It’s a program that, when run, produces an image of mickey mouse.
By your description of the law, this svg file is not infringing on disney’s copyright - since it’s a program that when run creates an infringing document (the rasterized pixels of mickey mouse) but it is not an infringing document itself.
I really don’t think my “i wrote a program in the svg language” defense would hold up in court. But i wonder how many levels of abstraction before it’s legal? Like if i write the mickey-mouse-generator in python does that make it legal? If it generates a variety of randomized images of mickey mouse, is that legal? If it uses statistical anaylsis of many drawings of mickey to generate an average mickey mouse, is that legal? Does it have to generate different characters if asked before it is legal? Can that be an if statement or does it have to use statistical calculations to decide what character i want?
The SVG file is a representation of mickey mouse thus possibly touches Disney copyright (depends on exactly what form of Mickey it represents, as I believe some went public domain equivalent recently). It's not capable of being something else without substantial rework. Therefore it is a derivative work.
Generally, to pass the test of not being a derivative work it would need to be generic enough that it creates non-copyrighted works as well, then the responsibility shifts over. Can the program exist without a given copyrighted work (not general idea, specific copyrighted works)? Then it's quite probably not derivative.
Good point, having a once off advanced option to completely bypass this at device setup would be good.
Also, other commenters have mentioned that adb is unaffected by this which makes it seem like less of a problem, to me at least. Still inconvenient that even if you adb install fdroid you can't install apps directly from it.
https://blog.yossarian.net/2025/11/21/We-should-all-be-using...
reply