DannyBee

46 ms·

511.
by DannyBee 2y ago
It's funny because i literally explained in the original thread how this actually works legally, and that's exactly what happened.
512.
by DannyBee 2y ago
It's not the math dude it's ensuring I'm understanding what the table is trying to say. Maybe stop being an ass and try to be useful?
513.
by DannyBee 2y ago
I agree on all of this. But the others had already done the r&d. Take a look at the documents in the Massachusetts table saw injury lawsuit, from 2006, an example.
514.
by DannyBee 2y ago
also, the saws do not produce dust everywhere. these are European saws. Dust extraction is not only required on the saw, It’s required by law in the workplace. This saw will not operate unless the safety + extraction hood is in the proper
515.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Have you considered that they've thought of this? Seriously. This is company producing high end sliding table saws that cost tens of thousands. They've been at it for over half a century. This is not someone producing a 299 saw
516.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Sure it's a pro saw. Evidence from the lawsuits says they could do it at the 299 or 399 price point. Cost per saw was like 50 bucks.
517.
by DannyBee 2y ago
To each their own. Computer vision of this kind is not like cutting edge ai. This is pretty standard fare and has been for decades
518.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Are you saying you tink you will notice and react? Because that's what doesn't happen and people lose fingers.
519.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Sure, but this is pretty pedantic in practice - 5x is still a huge number. There is no practical difference between 5x and 30x and 1000x.
520.
by DannyBee 2y ago
I literally was asking a question, no need to be an ass.
521.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Actually not. My handguard saw will do as well as the sawstop non-destructively (independently tested and verified, so you don't have to take their word for it). They do it (basically) by predicting whether your hand will touch the bla
522.
by DannyBee 2y ago
#2 is becuase woodworkers as a group are fairly conservative. TTI and friends were very effective at riling them up. I belong to a number of significant woodworking forums/etc, and have watched the manipulation over the years firsthan
523.
by DannyBee 2y ago
They've pretty explicitly been willing to release all of the relevant patents. The truth is it was always a red herring for their competitors. The major players all have systems that don't rely on these patents. Lawsuit discovery
524.
by DannyBee 2y ago
That table says that 122kwh is only 4 gallons of gasoline. Most ICE cars that compare to an ev with a 122 kWh battery size hold 20 gallons of more. So still 5x energy density in the ICE vehicle Or am missing something?
525.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Five simultaneous axis is unlikely for hobby anytime soon since it is export controlled ;) Beyond that its seriously annoying to home and align a five axis machine. These machines would at least need absolute encoders to really be usable fo
526.
by DannyBee 2y ago
While interesting, this seems to have all the downsides of 5 axis without any benefit over just using 5 axis (ie it's not cheaper or easier in practice)
527.
by DannyBee 2y ago
What do you mean? It works fine in handwritten recursive-descent parsers, which 99% of the time pass around a state object. Assume (to simplify enough to write this out quickly for HN) you have the following: 1. A token stream with markings
528.
by DannyBee 2y ago
You would file an appearance anyway, because who wants a default judgement?
529.
by DannyBee 2y ago
This appears to be somebody's template that has this misspelling and lots of people have used. I can easily find a bunch of nearly identically worried ones. See, e.g, https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91291
530.
by DannyBee 2y ago
IP lawyer here - yes, this is just a bureaucratic step. In practice, even if they chose to later do nothing, they would still file a notice of appearance. It would be silly not to, since in this case (before the TTAB) it would lead to a def
531.
by DannyBee 2y ago
I don't know specifically - but even now, i still end up having to explain to people that incremental parsing/lexing (particularly without error recovery) is not hard, it is not really complicated, and as the author here said, Tim
532.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Ah yes they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts! Not because they aren't attracting enough users or something. No you see because that might require you to be at least a little wrong. So that can't be true. Also mos
533.
by DannyBee 2y ago
No - strict liability does not require any intent, nor can you escape liability by saying you paid someone to handle it. What provides decent coverage is that nobody is going to charge and convict you. They only charge the cases with intent
534.
by DannyBee 2y ago
I know a bit about this from woodworking and having friends who deal with exotic species (and are licensed to collect windfallen exotic trees, etc). Pretty much the only cases they charge are those involving endangered or critically endange
535.
by DannyBee 2y ago
I strongly doubt this - they don't have enough training data either - you are confusing (i think) the scale of their success with the amount of verilog they possess. IE I think you are wildly underestimating both the scale of training
536.
by DannyBee 2y ago
This kind of interrogation is held at a police station. They are recorded - a lot of countries outside the US actually require it be recorded and if it is not, the interview and anything said in it are simply inadmissible. Even in the US, r
537.
by DannyBee 2y ago
It's also required to file suit anyway, but for that purpose does not have to be done before the infringement (IE you can register after infringement) - see Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC et al You are somewh
538.
by DannyBee 2y ago
" and I find it hard to see how damages could be levied in this situation." Unfortunately, this would be intentional copyright infringement (assuming the code is copyrightable, blah blah blah), since you are doing it on purpose wi
539.
by DannyBee 2y ago
That's because the authors are reporting results for AOT scheme to c compilers. For languages more directly supported by llvm/gcc, they already do various kinds of function versioning and specialization. You would be highly unlike
540.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Note - anyone bored enough could already make any of these tools work by using FICLONERANGE (which ZFS already supports), but you'd have to do locking - lock, compare file ranges, clone, unlock. Because FIDEDUPRANGE has the compare as

More ›