The most honest, logical, and practical take I've seen on this. People consistently underestimate the skill and effort it takes to write precisely and think critically both about their problem, and their processes. The closer you are to knowing what to ask for in the way knowledgeable people ask for it with respect to the process you are using to complete work, the closer the output will be to what you want.
I feel this. Almost exactly the same experience. 300bps in early days. At some point got a 1200bps. Then 2400, then 14.4 and 28.8 came fast. WWIV variants. CDC. 2600. Phrack. 612-341-2459 for local Telenet dialup at the time, my fingers still know the number unconsciously. War dialing! 5ESS. SS7. Bluebeep. 0700 bridges. Even in the early days of the internet, EFnet had BBS flavor to some extent. Certainly the warez. haha. A lot of the same people. What a time. I remember the first time I was going through Computer Shopper and found the BBS list. First one I ever called was Unlawful Entry... welp. If fate exists, it was busy that day.
NAL, but IMO it's legal & political maneuvering. DOJ asked Judge Mehta to consider forcing divestiture of Chrome after Google was found to illegally maintained a search monopoly. If it's determined the divestiture is feasible, especially with an existing more-or-less "credible buyer" at the ready, it looks executable. The offer is basically crafted to fit the DOJ/regulator concerns, ie everything is build around "least disruptive": keeping Google the default search engine, etc. Furthermore, just by doing this, they are putting ideas out there about what an "acceptable buyer" is and puts a number to the discussion about "what Chrome is worth". Purely remedies chess and an attempt to own the narrative. Google's going to say no, at least as-is, but this certainly throws a wrench in the works. Lots more moves to be made.
Unless Google is banned from providing a browser entirely, they'll just re-fork Webkit and release another browser, and it will very quickly replace Chrome usage.
Especially on Android - which is the most used OS in the world.
It seems strange to ban Google from offering a Search Engine, when all the other big tech companies can get into any field just fine, but the legal system is primarily a weapon for corruption these days, so who knows.
I mean, sure, if you want to start limiting what big companies do, and there's some fairness in how it's applied, fine.
Presumably they would include a clause they can't do that? If not, why wouldn't they simply fork Chromium if they haven't already. They must be bargaining that there will be some lockout period and regulatory scrutiny that would prevent them from immeadiately rebranding chrome and repointing all the download links to a new repo.
It's not about stopping people from making a browser and a search engine and tying them together, it's about abusing your web browser monopoly to promote your search monopoly (and vice versa) to keep competition out
The rules apply to everyone it's just that no one else has a search or browser monopoly
Microsoft had a browser monopoly at one point and it should have happened to them but they generously pissed it away
Google pretty clearly has a monopoly on search though, and their ownership of Android + the #1 web browser in the world maintains this. I don't think a new fork of Webkit would change this argument.
They lose the brand so that's the most important part. And chrome has far divestd from chromium in all the important ways Google makes money. It'd take years for chrome to to lose its marketshare even if Google had a chrome clone made tomorrow.
If anything, they may try to start from scratch, like with Fuschia. In which case the anti-trust was a success in making companies compete again.
> Especially on Android - which is the most used OS in the world.
In the EU, they're forced to ask you which browser and which search engine you want.
> It seems strange to ban Google from offering a Search Engine, when all the other big tech companies can get into any field just fine, but the legal system is primarily a weapon for corruption these days, so who knows.
Letting one instance of blatant anti competitive and anti consumer behaviour fly because others are allowed isn't the way to go. Google are a bit monopolistic abuser, fix that. Apple are too? Good, that's the next job.
> I mean, sure, if you want to start limiting what big companies do, and there's some fairness in how it's applied, fine.
> But that's not what will happen.
That's how the EU is approaching with the DMA and DSA.
If you're assuming the vast majority of European users don't use Chrome except when tricked by Google to game MAUs - it would show up in usage that the vast majority of European Android users are regularly using a different browser.
i think this has everything to do with the fact that learning chess by learning sequences will get you into more trouble than good. even a trillion games won't save you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number
that said, for the sake of completeness, modern chess engines (with high quality chess-specific models as part of their toolset) are fully capable of, at minimum, tying every player alive or dead, every time. if the opponent makes one mistake, even very small, they will lose.
while writing this i absently wondered if you increased the skill level of stockfish, maybe to maximum, or perhaps at least an 1800+ elo player, you would see more successful games. even then, it will only be because the "narrower training data" (ie advanced players won't play trash moves) at that level will probably get you more wins in your graph, but it won't indicate any better play, it will just be a reflection of less noise; fewer, more reinforced known positions.
> i think this has everything to do with the fact that learning chess by learning sequences will get you into more trouble than good. even a trillion games won't save you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number
Indeed. As has been pointed out before, the number of possible chess positions easily, vastly dwarfs even the wildest possible estimate of the number of atoms in the known universe.
Sure, but so does the number of paragraphs in the english language, and yet LLMs seem to do pretty well at that. I don't think the number of configurations is particularly relevant.
(And it's honestly quite impressive that LLMs can play it at all, but not at all surprising that it loses pretty handily to something which is explicitly designed to search, as opposed to simply feed-forward a decision)
Since we're mentioning Shannon... What is the minimum representative sample size of that problem space? Is it close enough to the number of freely available chess moves on the Internet and in books?
> I think this has everything to do with the fact that learning chess by learning sequences will get you into more trouble than good.
Yeah, once you've deviated from a sequence you're lost.
Maybe approaching it by learning the best move in billions/trillions of positions, and feeding that into some AI could work better. Similar positions often have the same kind of best move.
Honestly, I think that once you discard the moves one would never make, and account for symmetries/effectively similar board positions (ones that could be detected by a very simple pattern matcher), chess might not be that big a game at all.
what's discouraging is that some of you are essentially implying that picasso should have sold himself as a service (make more art while alive) instead of doing whatever a once-in-a-timeline artistic genius needs to do to create priceless artifacts that, by the way, required the investment of his, and his family member's, lives to realize. when his works are equatable with the lyrics to "happy birthday" this might be worth revisiting; until then why don't you buy some art? http://fineartamerica.com/featured/copyright-john-muellerlei...
Actually not at all. I believe from all I have read about Picasso he would have been a productive artist even if no copyright existed - he was a great artist and creating art was at his core.
I actually buy a lot of art - I have long since run out of wall space to hang it all :) None of the artists I buy are producing art just for the money and copyright plays no role in why they are an artist.
> I believe from all I have read about Picasso
> None of the artists I buy are producing art just for the money and copyright plays no role
You seem to be presuming to know the motivations of every artist to have existed based on your personal experience. Is it so inconceivable to you that there may be someone who, let's say, is considering writing a book, wouldn't at all be motivated by how much money he could earn in return for the investment of his time? And take into account the fact that he could potentially sell the rights for considerably more, the longer copyright guarantees exclusive rights to the owner?
The value of lengthly copyright is basically zero to any rights buyer at the time of production due to the very high discount rate used in the arts and publishing industry. If it weren't zero then publishers would pay more to young authors than old authors. If you can find one artist that has ever said they create more because their heirs can live off the copyright 50 years after they are dead please show us.
The only value to retrospective copyright extension is to give a windfall profit to rights holders long after the artist is dead. It is outright theft of our cultural heritage.
