nickff

13 ms·

211.
by nickff 7mo ago
Replication is not the same as reproduction; I can replicate an API without violating someone's license or copyright (which I would by reproducing their work).
212.
by nickff 7mo ago
Developers are permitted to learn from open source code with restrictive copyrights, and apply those lessons to developing other software which does not comply with the copyright of their 'example'. As an aside, I do believe that
213.
by nickff 7mo ago
That may be the reason copyright came to be, but it's much more expansive now.
214.
by nickff 7mo ago
Copyright is all about gating access, as media rights holders for sports well know.
215.
by nickff 7mo ago
I have not seen any evidence that LLMs ‘distribute’ modified software, though they do seem capable of replicating it.
216.
by nickff 7mo ago
Appending ‘development’ seems like a significant departure from ‘vanilla’ “Open Source” to me, and wouldn’t all development be ‘closed-source’ at least between commits, if not between pull requests?
217.
by nickff 7mo ago
It seems to be a common view on HN that licenses and conditional access to websites should be ignored (i.e. WRT ad-blockers), but also that licenses on Open-Source Software repositories should be respected (i.e. WRT LLM training). I believe
218.
by nickff 7mo ago
Isn't Carmack just employing the 'Cathedral' type of 'Open Source'?
219.
by nickff 7mo ago
I think that I, like most people, enjoy the ones I agree with. That said, I’m generally skeptical of all polemics, especially the ones I agree with.
220.
by nickff 7mo ago
I think that would definitely make it a more precise polemic, but the incorrect use of the word seems more of a symptom of the author's sloppiness than anything else.
221.
by nickff 7mo ago
That point may be pithy, but it's unconvincing to any skeptic; those are characteristics of a polemic.
222.
by nickff 7mo ago
What did I say about the writer's character?
223.
by nickff 7mo ago
That’s how eminent domain and regulatory takings work in most countries.
224.
by nickff 7mo ago
Unless the user’s e-mail was controlled by their counter-party, what folder the message ended up in seems to be irrelevant to me. The user is the one who selected the e-mail inbox service provider, and has some degree of control over messag
225.
by nickff 7mo ago
Isn’t Google just distributing varying proportions of a pseudo-monopoly rent? It doesn’t seem like the CEO is really contributing that much to the company, but most of the individual contributors seem to be compensated disproportionately re
226.
by nickff 7mo ago
Basically all types of weapons have been used in all sorts of conflicts; the British used aircraft in their mandates, and the Italians used chemical weapons in Ethiopia. That said, I am not aware of any weapon which was developed specifical
227.
by nickff 7mo ago
> ” I inquired why founders, CEOs or developers weren't in part of the discussion or in attendance? Moderator responded that they couldn't find them qualified enough to take part in the discussion.” This seems more like creden
228.
by nickff 7mo ago
The Gatling Gun was first deployed in the US civil war, not in Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun The “machine gun” has a more complicated history, and the first practical example may have been Gatling’s
229.
by nickff 7mo ago
I understand the impulse in this direction, but I’m not sure it would serve as much of a disincentive, as there would likely just be a highly-paid scapegoat. Why not something more lasting and less difficult to ignore, like compulsory discl
230.
by nickff 7mo ago
"Person of Interest" covered this about 15 years ago, and is now available on Netflix in some countries.
231.
by nickff 7mo ago
Thanks for your link! The text seems to indicate the equipment is Qatar-owned: “The foreign military sale agreement, signed Dec. 7, 2016, requested AFLCMC provide the radar itself and associated mission support facilities at a remote locati
232.
by nickff 7mo ago
I was curious about the (AN/FPS-132) radar, which is a significant cost-driver, and have come away unsure as to whether it was a US-asset (which seems to be what this website is tracking). Qatar seems to have ordered one of these radar
233.
by nickff 7mo ago
The problem is that people are very rude to customer service representatives, so companies spend money training CSRs, who often quit after a short period of being abused by customers. Automated reception systems disallow people from reachin
234.
by nickff 7mo ago
This is somewhat true; despite what HNers seem to think, online ads are not very effective (in terms of convincing people to buy things), and Google 'screws over' its advertising customers as often as it delivers deficient search
235.
by nickff 8mo ago
Isn't that the 'bull case' for Gemini?
236.
by nickff 8mo ago
Interestingly (at least to me), the Tenth Circuit doesn't get appealed very often, and holds up fairly well on appeal, with a 50% reversal rate on appeals that are heard. https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07&#x2F
237.
by nickff 8mo ago
Every bureaucracy I've ever experienced is constantly complaining about being under-staffed, but when they get more funding, the service level rarely improves. It seems like complaining about 'over-work' is just an easy excus
238.
by nickff 8mo ago
It seems like an unfortunate reality that being a government contractor puts any company in any country at the whim of their government. AFAIK every government has 'pulled the rug out' from at least some contractors at some point.
239.
by nickff 8mo ago
The whole government 'strong-arms' many of its counter-parties in a variety of situations; this is unfortunately nothing new, and far from an innovation by Hegseth. A more clearly illegal example (because the government was acting
240.
by nickff 8mo ago
As it stands, the Geneva convention only applies to acts when both countries are signatories, or one is, and the other follows the convention (which Hamas unfortunately does not): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Co

More ›