Same here, and I’ve worked at everything from mom-and-pops to a couple of household names. IME this (seemingly endless) discussion about how to manage commit history is the tabs-versus-spaces of source control.
Just when I thought tweetstorms couldn't get any worse, here's one where every tweet is a quote-tweet of the author. I don't even understand how I'm supposed to read this.
> Copyright has concluded that reading by robots doesn’t count. Infringement is for humans only; when computers do it, it’s fair use.
Surely there's a limit to this. If I use a machine to produce something that just happens to exactly match a copyrighted work, now it's not infringement because of the method I used to produce it? That seems nonsensical, but maybe there's precedent for this too? (I have no idea what I'm talking about.)
That quote is basically entirely nonsensical. 'copyright' hasn't decided anything (nor has any legislative body nor the courts). All that's happened is that OpenAI has put forward an argument that using large quantities of media scraped from the internet as training data is fair use. This argument for the most part does not rely on the human vs machine distinction (in fact it leans on the idea that the process is not so different from a human learning). The main place this comes up is the final test of damage to the original in terms of lost market share where it's argued that because it's a machine consuming the content there's no loss of audience to the creator (which is probably better phrased as the people training the neural net weren't going to pay for it anyway). A lot does ride on the idea that the neural net, if 'well designed', does not generally regurgitate its training data verbatim, which is in fairly hot dispute at the moment. OpenAI somewhat punts on this situation and basically says the output may infringe copyright in this case, but the copyright holder should sue whoever's generating and using the output from the net, not the person who trained and distributed the net.
Surely it could be argued that there is a loss of audience to the author. At the moment some people will read the author's code directly in order to find out how to solve a problem. In the future at least some of those people will just ask copilot to solve the problem for them.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled repeatedly that anonymity is protected by the First Amendment, specifically because anonymity enables free speech. A person who does not speak because they've been cowed into silence is deprived of their rights. "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation … at the hand of an intolerant society." (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission.)
Thanks for pointing out an interesting aspect of US constitution.
It however doesn't change what I said.
When fighting political causes, anonymity doesn't help - Gandhi or Rosa Park or Martin Luther King continue to inspire us today because they faced injustice and tyranny head on. They have provided us with an effective template to fight against injustice and assert our rights.
Fear is often the reason behind anonymity, and that doesn't bode well for any political cause. Even Gandhi, who inspired non-violent politics said that he would prefer if people chose violent politics than giving in to fear or cowardice ( https://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm ). Moreover, politics on internet is even more fraught as even foreign powers can hide behind anonymity to interfere in the politics of other nations.
If they are in a public building with public access, so not in a restricted area, then recordings can be made. CA does have additional protections even in public concerning “confidential communications” which likely prohibit covert recording.
I've seen a lot of people lately making the "you’re made out of animal parts, so eat animals" argument, which is reasonable on its face. But there's a pretty serious problem with it: those animals get everything they need from plants. And now we're in very murky territory, because now you have to prove—not just hypothesize, but prove—that the human animal is different from other animals in some very specific ways, or you have to weaken the initial claim to the point where it doesn't really say anything at all.
This reply from @AzureDevOps is bizarre: "We understand. However, the way to report this issues related to Windows 11 is through our Windows Insider even from another device. Thanks in advance."
Wow. To think of it, nothing in this HN thread, including your link, is truly new and unexpected, but in this context it felt somehow more dystopian than ever. Talking about machines pretending to be humans doing stupid stuff, getting automated responses from machines pretending to be humans, that also are the same kind of stupid stuff... Almost feels like drowning.
We understand. However, the way to report this issues related to im̄̽̚m͚͠i͙̬͈̟̹̳ͨ͆̀ͅn̲͚̻ͩ̐͒ͩ̊è̹̱͖̼̰n̘̯ͥ̿̌͛͌t̳̖̣̻̯̱ͥ̅̿̇͜ ̥̻̺͒ͣ͒͠A͔͔͓ͨÌ̖̲̆͒̐̍ͅ ̝̙̼̤͖͍̆̀ͪdͤͨ͑̈҉̭̖y̤͔̮͚̞̺ͬͦͦ̎ͮ͐́s̤͓̲͓̖̪̊t͎̰̤̩̞̞͇͐̎͂̉̆̚o̱̣̰͇̟̻͎̿͒̋̎p̫̰̮̌͐ͧ͗̔̀ͣi̫̱̩̠̫͔͒̉ͤa̶ͧͦͭͩ is through our Citizen Satisfaction Department, even from another Autonomous Azure® Sub-district. Thanks in advance.
The user that account replied to was having a conversation with Microsoft Support about Windows 11, and they replied to the wrong tweet thread with the wrong account.
And it seems to overlook a pretty straightforward question: in the era of the search engine, how much of an issue is link rot?
I've hit bad links before. Four out of five times, I can do a general search for the title of the document that should have been at the link or the quoted excerpt that the document I'm reading pulled from the link, and I get a clone of the document posted somewhere else.
Rethink this.