This is essentially just MTG limited -- draft or maybe team draft. Draft is my favorite part. Though I don't necessarily agree with the "things that make magic fun". Mill/Discard/Land Destro decks are fun, janky decks that rarely come together and it's fun to try and make them work.
Is my house a copy of the dirt it's on top of? Did the people who built my house build the dirt? There's a difference between "building upon" an idea and trying to claim you built the idea itself
Sure they build upon them, you still need to add your 1% of original insight. There was a first person to realise that you could make fire by rubbing two sticks together.
Anthropic didn't lose because they scraped (read) copyrighted works. They lost because they distributed copyrighted works directly via torrents. Those aren't the same.
That was Meta. The judge ruled in the Anthropic case that they infringed because they downloaded pirated copies of books that they could have otherwise purchased legally, and for retaining copies of those books as a central library.
A farmer was told he could only grow X acres of feed on his own land; feed that he had no intention of selling and was being fed entirely to his own livestock on the same land.
This seems to overturn that in part, but until Wickard is overturned, and the interstate commerce clause reigned in, there will be weird side effects of it like this.
Circuit courts may not overrule Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, this decision purports to rest on the “Necessary and Proper” clause, avoiding Wickard (decided on commerce clause grounds)
In particular, Necessary and Proper as it relates to the taxing power, which the challenged statute relied upon, having been passed decades before the scope of Commerce Clause powers began their expansion, let alone Wickard v. Filburn.
The party that wants the precedent reversed loses in the lower court (because the lower court is bound by current Supreme Court precedent) and appeals to the Supreme Court. The canonical historical example is Brown v. Board of Education, which was appealed to the Supreme Court explicitly to ask them to reverse Plessy v. Ferguson, which lower courts had relied on as precedent.
Additionally, one can argue that the state of the world has changed enough that assumptions made by the USC at the time of precedence require reversal.
Because those changes might depend on those other changes. Git merges aren't linear. They're branched. And PR reviews are meant to just examine the merge of 1 branch back into master. They're not really meant to review multiple steps along the same branch to make it easier to review.
There are so many times where I want to create 3-4 Merge requests that all build on each other along the same branch instead of creating one giant MR but the UI for reviewing them doesn't really work that way.
> There are so many times where I want to create 3-4 Merge requests that all build on each other instead of creating one giant MR but the UI for reviewing them doesn't really work that way.
it sounds like you want multiple checkpoints for review parts to happen on, but still only 1 merge in the end
I find LLM's particularly good at filtering and distilling a large rambling idea that I have into a well-formatted and coherent paragraph, and also removing any statements that would be perceived as overly argumentative or rude.
NASA hasn't had a proper goal or mission for decades. That's their problem. And the spaceflight goal that everyone wants -- making things cheaper -- is not something that government agencies are particularly good at producing.
It's hard for NASA or any government agency to have a real vision for anything longer than the current administration it is operating under. When the current POTUS can replace the head of that agency to install someone that more closely aligns to their views, you get ping ponging agendas. Stop everything you're doing because POTUS does not believe in it. Okay, just kidding, new POTUS disagrees with previous POTUS, so go back to what you were doing. That's not a problem to do after stopping work for 4-8 years, right?
You can point to any administration in the government and make the same statement. They're mostly defensive administrations; making sure things aren't getting out of control. NASA almost by definition needs a technical project and problems to solve. They were never a defense administration keeping the status quo.
Their goal and mission of returning to the moon turns 25 this year. But you're right, it has hardly ever been a proper goal. But that's the manned program only. The unmanned planetary science program has been hugely successful relative to the amount of money they get.
Well, in the sense that it's possible to be eating zero calories in the time between meals. You still need the meals. If you're just looking at brief snapshots, it doesn't tell you much.
It was a widely considered impossible to have more than single digit percentage of renewables even for instantaneous figures. That "limit" has been raised again and again as the world gets more experience with it.
It's great that we've made so much progress that people can say "it's just 90% renewable for 30 mins" but that's a result of decades of hard work.
You are conflating ideas here and it's getting muddled up. Literally nobody ever said that we couldn't handle 100% renewables for brief periods. The single digit percentage you're referring to is not about the renewables, it's about when the renewables aren't there. Its about maintaining grid stability when you don't have dispatchable sources to do it with. Essentially what we've built is a system where the renewables provide a tertiary function- providing power when they want to, but not in a reliable way, so we still have the same carbon based dispatchable resources.
This is not a serious system. We've done a bit of work on th cheap, easy part. Installing some solar panels is easy and costs almost nothing. The storage and transmission of power is 90% of the actual work!
It is literally written into regulations in many places that renewables aren't allowed to go above certain percentages even for short periods e.g in Ireland they are raising the cap by 5% every so often with an aim to get to 95% by 2035, it's currently 75% and was 50% when they brought in that particular rule.
In Australia they keep reducing the number of synchronous generators that are required to be connected as they gain more experience.
Renewables started as fringe tech and are now a trillion dollar industry. But they faced skepticsims at every stage along the way.
But it would still be an achievement worth sharing if, never in your life before, you thought you could go on a full day without eating, and then you go and do it, wouldn't it? And then you might argue back "oh but it's not an achievement to go a full day without eating" or "Anybody can do it". To which i say "Well that's the problem of the metaphor you made. It's still an achievement and a milestone that we could get to 90%+, even if just briefly.
reply