The irony that copyright is meant to induce "creativity" now spurs on less and less by tightly controlling the flow of information/inspiration. It locks people into less and less creative avenues, doing the exact opposite. Limited to lifetime of author. Publishers and contracted "rights holders" should not be allowed to continue to pursue/extort profits after the death of the author. I am being simplistic here and recognize there's room for nuance, but it's so damn obvious we have a situation far unlike what "the founders" intended (even though I'm not a fan of a lot of said founders for many reasons - this is one I can understand and relate to).
Should the government ever enforce copyright violations? That’s kind of the status quo for the vast vast majority of infractions. Even though enforcement could be trivial.
No, not in a direct sense anyway. It should be a tort. The government should assist with enforcement of court ordered actions like seizure of property or liens for non-payment however.
Tesla has a market cap twice what Toyota does. They have a P/E ratio over 60, vs about 7 for Toyota. Clearly the market thinks Tesla's future is not as a car company, because compared to literally every other car manufacturer they are wildly overvalued.
My personal opinion is that TSLA has only one direction to go for a while. Down. Nothing about the business supports the market optimism. Not that I'm going to run out and short the stock, mind you, that old adage about how long the market can stay irrational seems very on point in this case.
I’d suggest that Tesla is high rather than BMW being low. It’s the only way for a normal person who is a Musk fan to buy into any part of his empire, so you have demand from people who are Musk fans and express that fandom by buying stocks.
So basically this is saying that the CAP theorem is irrelevant because a partition is not really have a partition (since the load balancer still can reach everybody). Hmm...
I agree that in modern data centers the CAP theorem is essentially irrelevant for intra-DC services, due the uptime and redundancy of networking H/W (making a partition less likely than other systemic failures).
Across DCs I'll claim it is still absolutely relevant.
My son got his first official letter when we was about two weeks old. It was a bill from the hospital for his birth: $8,000. He was directly charged on that bill, not us parents.
And that was on top of the $24,000 bill that we had received from hospital. So $32,000 for a no-frills (from a medical viewpoint) birth and that was many years ago.
The health insurance paid 100% of both bills, so we ended up not following up.
Releasing some software open source, having it gain popularity (just from being open source) and then saying you can't make money of it seems disingenuous to me. The project would not have been as popular if it hadn't been open source in the first place. You can't have it both ways.
Making money directly of an open source project is indeed difficult. But that also isn't the promise of open source.
The promise is that many groups come together to work on an open source project for mutual benefit.
I had the privilege to work on several open source projects for my employer. Some of these were pretty important to what we are doing, but they were not the direct products we would sell. That worked remarkably well!
I still work on open source, for work, and some in my spare time.
Why bring this us up now? This formula was changed in 1983, when Ronald Reagan was president and the interest rate was 9.09% (down from 12.24% in 1982).
I'll note that Steve Forbes supported Trump in 2016, and claimed last year that Joe Biden is "not up to the job anymore" - although this is not necessarily relevant.
We can't change how we look at inflation based on the perception we want to achieve. This is what we have measured since 1983. And what if the change the formula back? Then we have a new number. And now what?
The article claims that the previous formula correlates better with sentiment. Maybe so. Sure, ever increasing money supply might make you feel rich, when in fact you are not.
Did we think we will never have to be pay the bill for over a decade of near-zero interest rates?
The current sentiment seems to be as much influenced by what people want to believe or what their peer group on social media believes.
I kind of agree at least for a huge amount of code that mostly schleps data around according to rules. The data should be at the center with the code orbiting it, not off to the side.
I'm an old fart too. First computer what the ZX81 with 1K of RAM :)
That's how it all started, and made a carrier out of it.
What always excited me about software was that I always had renew myself, learn a new thing, change the way I think about something, reflect on what is now possible that wasn't before, etc. I.e. it was never stagnant.
In addition I could try out everything myself, and (more of less) understand what it is doing and why. When I wanted to understand RSA, I read the paper and implemented a PoC myself, or a BTree, or an LSM tree, same for Paxos and Raft.
I worked a lot on databases and "BigData" and on the re-convergence of the two. Much of this is open source, so I could play with it, change it, etc.
In that AI is indeed different. I can install (say) Ollama on my machine and play with it, look at the source code (llama.cpp), etc.
And, yet, when I get a response to a prompt, even locally on my machine, I feel blind.
And I used to work on neural networks in the late 90s, when their use was limited, so I understand what they do and how they work.
How exactly was that model trained? On what data? What did it actually learn?
(Aside: Here I am reminded of early usage of neural networks to detect enemy tanks. It worked perfectly in the lab, would correctly classify enemy vs friendly tanks, and in a field test it failed terribly - worse than random.
What happened? Well it turned out that the set of photos with enemy tanks mostly showed a particular weather pattern, whereas the friendly photos predominantly showed another. So what the neural network had actually learned was to classify the weather.
You might laugh about this now... But that's what I mean.)
So, yeah, I can related to OP, even though I am excited about what AI might bring.
> S.F. Supervisor Shamann Walton responded to the news of the collision on social media, saying, “So much for safety.”
Somehow I would have expected more from a supervisor.
Maybe she could have awaited the investigation?
Does she have stats on miles driver per accident - for human drivers and autonomous vehicles?
Does she have stats on how many cyclist are hit by car with human drivers?
Is this an interesting intersection?
...
Seems to me the range of what a credit card charges would seem sensible. I.e. 3-7%.
Alternatively charge 30% but be forced to allow side-installing Apps.
That way developers can decide if they want the convenience and reach of the AppStore or not.
Sure. I think side loading is the best options or allowing another way to pay where apple takes a lower cut makes sense. I'd argue that credit card companies are doing a lot less than a marketplace? But again... How do you come up with a number that really makes sense? Apple is just going to charge whatever they can until they are told they have to change.
I just donated money to the Internet Archive.
reply