ALS is such a cruel disease. Cognitive recognition of a one way trip where all your functions shut down one by one. Highly recommend the book "I Remember Running" by Darcy Wakefield, which she wrote one finger tap at a time on her phone.
Indeed. Similarly, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, written by French journalist Jean-Dominique Bauby, who had suffered a stroke with locked-in syndrome, by blinking his left eyelid.
The problem with this is that it destroys any chain of evidence. Tesla "lost" this data, in fact. You would never want your "black box" in your car delete itself after uploading to some service because the service could go down, be hacked, or the provider could decide to withhold it, forcing you into a lengthy discovery / custody battle.
This data is yours. You were going the speed limit when the accident happened and everyone else claims you were speeding. It would take forever to clear your name or worse you could be convicted if the data was lost.
This is more of "you will own nothing" crap. And mainly so Tesla can cover its ass.
If there were no copyright capitalists would find a way to invent it, so nah. Infringing copyright is just robber baron stuff from a capitalist perspective. A profiteer, maybe, but not a capitalist.
So I remember sharing a file to my brother and "uploading" it over very slow DSL at the time (I think I was getting 100kbps a second or something). The file was copyrighted, a TV show, Supernatural, or something like that. Anyway, the upload was instant. Apparently Megaupload would do a quick hash of the file (not sure if it was in browser or probably more likely the first 100k bits or something of the file), and if it was a file that was already on their servers, they would just make a new download link for it, and the "upload" would finish. Links would be taken down by DMCA notices from forums and other file sharing sites (back then you could get good money making affiliate links and such, so people did a lot of their own uploading). But your private links and links you didn't share would remain. The files remained.
The fact that they did the hashing thing and kept the files locally really, incontrovertibly, proved they weren't deleting the files themselves when a notice went out. And that they were aware the hashed file was given a DMCA notice. This one little thing, probably to save bandwidth (and convivence for the end user of course; though outside of Linux ISOs there's little question what kind of files people are sharing), screwed him.
Anyway, #freeRossUlbricht (Yes I know he tried to make a hit out and a lot of people died from drugs he enabled to be sold, but the hit never happened and the drug users were consenting adults.) A life sentence is insane. 20 years? OK. Life? Heck he rejected a plea deal that would've given him 10... bet he regrets that now.
Getting a DMCA for one user's copy of a file doesn't mean every other user's copy is violating copyright. And that's not a theoretical concern, I remember a recent tweet about google drive having false positives in that exact way.
That's an interesting argument but the hash for an "infringing file" would be universal across all copies of said file, since presumably the DMCA striker would be claiming the file as infringing. I doubt a jury would buy it.
They can claim that a file is infringing everywhere it exists but they'd often be wrong and I don't think inherently infringing files are a valid way to interpret copyright.
"Better safe than sorry" is certainly, uh, safer. But I don't know if you can really say the DMCA requires it.
That thread has become an online event and obviously lost its original constructive purpose the moment the malicious intent became public. The commenters are not trying to alter history, it's leaving their mark in an historic moment. I mean the "lgtm" aged like milk and the emoji reactions are pretty funny commentary.
Did the artefact produced [0] for fussing even include the backdoored .so? My understanding was that the compromised build-scripts had measures to only run when producing deb/rpms.
It's not a deception, the transistor itself is 1nm, the gate is larger because of physics. We're talking transistor and gates composed of 100~ freaking atoms with transistors being in the dozen or so. And we are complaining that they're using the "wrong metrics." We are nearing Moores limit, might as well rejoice when they bleed out another nm or so and can pack in a few billion more transistors.
The active part of a FET is the area that is under the gate or surrounded by the gate.
It makes no sense to speak about a transistor that would be smaller than the gate, there is no such thing.
Besides the active part, whose conductance is controlled and variable, the transistor includes parts that are either electrical conductors, like the source , the drain and the gate electrode, or electrical insulators.
While those parts may be less important than the active part, they also have a major influence on the transistor characteristics, by introducing various resistances and capacitances in the equivalent schematic.
What matters is always the complete transistor. The only dimensions in a current transistor that are around 1 nm are vertical dimensions, in the direction perpendicular on the semiconductor, e.g. the thickness of the gate insulator.
The 2D semiconductors that are proposed for the TSMC "1 nm" process are substances that have a structure made of 2D sheets of atoms, like graphite, but which are semiconductors, unlike graphite, which is a 2D electrical conductor.
In this case the thickness of the semiconductor can be reduced to single layer of atoms, which is not possible with semiconductors that are 3D crystals, like silicon, because when they no longer form a complete crystal their electrical properties change a lot and they can become conductors or insulators, instead of remaining semiconductors.
There is little doubt that for reducing the transistor dimensions more than it is possible with a 3D semiconductor like silicon, at some point a transition to 2D semiconductors will be necessary. It remains to be seen when that will be possible at an acceptable cost and whether such smaller transistors can improve the overall performance of a device, because making smaller transistors makes sense only when that allows a smaller price, smaller volume or higher performance of a complete product.
I think you should keep an eye out for Relativity Space, their rocket is soon to launch, and the whole thing is, and I am not exaggerating, fully 3d printed. It's a wonderful design and I hope it works, because it automates a great deal of the process.
I always held the opinion that GPL etc was a copy-left license that was intended to make sure the code was free (free as in freedom not as in beer). That in an ideal world you wouldn't need the GPL or any licenses at all. At this point I really don't care what co-pilot or any of its derivatives result in and I think in the not too distant future we will have machine code to readable code translation which will enable more freedom. That is, it really won't matter if the code is compiled or not, when you can "AI decompile" it into human readable code, do your modifications, and then do with it what you will.
As long as this copyright violation laundering isn't reserved for the big guys, I'm happy for anything that confuses and delegitimizes the concept of copyright. But it is reserved for the big guys, you're going to get sued to death if you copy any of their work.
GPL folks are completely OK with something like Copylot when GPL license is obeyed, so all emitted code, generated by AI trained on GPL code, is licensed under GPL again. It's not OK to call our code as «public code» and ignore our license.
But by repeating this argument you are strengthening copyright, which is the fundamental evil GPL was made to fight. There surely will be FOSS clones of Copilot in the near future. There is no need to feed the copyright lobby.
