Why would the changelog update not include this? it's the most salient piece of information.
I thought I was just misreading it and failing to see where they stated what the new rate limits were, since that's what anyone would care about when reading it.
you are not ... you don't have any part of your body in reality, do you? you have left the room.
If people training LLMs are excessively scraping GitHub, it is well within GitHub's purview to limit that activity. It's their site and it's up to them to make sure that it stays available. If that means that they curtail the activity of abusive users, then of course they're going to do that.
it was never about avoid scrapers. that's just the excuse. they own the scrapers too, remember.
why do you think before they blocked non logged in users from even searching? they need your data and they are getting it exactly in their terms. because as I've said, they have already won.
… I… what has been embraced, extended and extinguished?
I see no MS or GitHub specific extension, here. Copilot exists, and so do many other tools. Copilot can use lots of non-Microsoft models, too, including models from non-Microsoft companies. You can also get git repository hosting from other companies. You can even do it yourself.
So, explain yourself. What has been embraced, extended, and extinguished? Be specific. No “vibes”. Cite your sources or admit you have none. I see no extending unique to MS and I see no extinguishing. So explain yourself.
Microsoft have a more successful social network for programmers than HN or google circles (heh) ever dreamed.
the arguments had already dropped access to the information by scrapers, since they own the scrapers and all... why did you brought it back as the main argument?
they hijacked what could have been a community hub and turned into a walled garden to sell a few enterprise licenses.
I'm with you, but let's not forget that they haven't started the extinguishing yet. They might yet do it. The extending they've done plenty: issue tracker, wiki, discussions etc.
> What the hell are … no, this is not a drug. This is a mental illness. Get help.
This is an unacceptable comment on HN and we have to ban accounts that do it repeatedly. We've warned you in the past about inappropriate comments. Please remind yourself of the guidelines and take care to observe them in future.
The person I responded to clearly has a mental illness and needs help.
The people behind this site think it’s some bastion of civility, and it just isn’t. People can be assholes using any words they choose, and they do so continuously here, but you mods don’t care because your rules are followed.
“Orange website bad” isn’t a meme for no reason. It’s because the orange website is bad. So fucken ban me.
We don't need to ban you, we just need you, along with everyone else here, to observe the guidelines, the first of which in the Comments section, is to ”be kind”. If everyone made the effort to do that, the site wouldn't be bad. It's no big deal, and it's not that hard to observe the guidelines if you're sincere about making a positive contribution to the site.
I've lived my entire life rolling over when people are assholes to me because I don't want to make the situation worse, or as seen here, throw the 2nd punch. the 2nd punch is always the one that gets caught. Never the first.
So, just the other day I was looking for a "grep" like tool that'll allow me to find files based on embedding similarity from a set of local files. I'm assuming it'll have an indexing process, and then a little vector db locally, and then when I grep it can search that and return me results.
Does anything like that exist? I couldn't find anything like it.
Can someone explain this to me? As far as I understand apple is being ordered to do the thing it was supposed to do already. Are there extra consequences I've not understood related to them disregarding the court ruling?
They are being ordered to pay the court and Epic’s costs and being referred to the Department of Justice for potential criminal prosecution for contempt.
Other than the possible contempt for the guy who lied under oath (and some bad press), doesn't this injunction just mean that apple has to do... what it was already previously ordered to do?
Are there no fines or consequences for them doing this? Am I missing something else here?
Previously they were ordered to allow outside payments. Apple “complied” by requiring a 27% cut on all outside payments (slight discount to cover the cost of Stripe or whatever), a massive scary popup saying that outside sites can’t be trusted, and the link wasn’t allowed to be in the “payment flow” (where else would it be?), and the right to audit your finances. There were some other things but that’s what I remember as being the most egregious.
Since this basically defies what the court would require, they are now explicitly telling Apple that none of that is allowed, and that there cannot be any restrictions on placement or styling of links to outside payments. As the judge said, no reasonable person would believe that their actions are complying with that they were instructed to do.
> Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court's Injunction. It did so with the express
intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the coverup made it worse. For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple.
If you drag something large over so it covers the south pole the shading can invert so that only the region covering the south pole is unshaded.
That's how I proved that the actual size of Australia is approximately 90% of the area of the globe. Who knew the mercator projection could be so confusing! :)
I believe the reason for this is that the risk of chargebacks for adult content is much higher, so the card networks need to pay more to service these merchants and it's less profitable for them (or maybe in some cases unprofitable).
Essentially it just comes down to the bottom line.
And of course big adult sites including Pornhub are not stupid enough to use anything mentioning "porn" on bank statements.
And if you talk to actual programmers working in adult industry you will learn payment processors have special strict rules for adult industry. Literally because of moral standards. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24291790 where it is discussed.
So no. It was not about chargebacks, it's about making money from child rape videos. Some people have values. Corporations are run by people who have to face their kids and spouses.
Sorry a very fair question. This is due to an article I read a fair while back asserting that. Let me see if I can find it or similar. Ok here is an HN comment (relevant section extracted from comment[0], full thread[1]) with some discussion on that.
> In the adult/porn world, there's a high amount of chargebacks and fraud relative to low-risk industries like SaaS software. If you pass a certain chargeback threshold in the adult industry, your account is terminated, and no payment processor will do business with you.
Now it was ages ago that I read this, and I'm sure it's a more nuanced topic than my simplified answer, but that's what I understood from my reading at the time.
If you read your own sources, the thread your linked, the stories shared by people working in that industry make it super clear that the root cause is that payment processors are allergic to adult industry (ie porn) not higher chargeback risk. They specifically set low chargeback tolerance just for this industry. So how can you deny that it is about people's ethics and values. Of people who run corporations and people who are willing to sue them.
And it was ethics and values for Pornhub too. See my other comment or just look up what happened.
The classic example case is "honey, I don't know what this charge on our monthly expenses is I promise, look I'll charge it back" — ie cover up for an angry spouse.
What you and mijoharas allude to is a cute urban myth. Pornhub never appeared as Pornhub on your bank statements and the same goes for every serious adult content site for decades. And if it was about chargebacks Visa would never even touch Amazon or AliExpress.
Read why Pornhub was ditched in 2020/2022. Trigger alert, it involves rape and trafficking victims.
Or read the sources mijoharas posted. They specifically say that payment processors simply do not like porn. I guess he did not read his own links.
Mijoharas and I both mentioned the adult industry, you've closed the scope down to just pornhub for some reason -- essentially you're arguing some other argument no one else made.
Payment providers note higher chargeback rates for adult/porn services than those for other mundane services, this is a longstanding -- pre-internet, even -- pattern which has nothing to do with the pornhub situation within the last 5 years.
pornhub is a good recent example of when payment processors ditched a major company due to csam scandal and this is very relevant to unregulated models.
> Payment providers note higher chargeback rates for adult
You get cause and effect inside out. Read the link posted by the guy you are defending https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24291790. Payment processors selectively nerf/buff industries. They see porn immoral and set stricter rules. Including lower allowed chargeback. And yes this means they actually make less money because of it. Believe it or not not everyone thinks money is everything. I give up if you guys actively resist facts.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that this approach doesn't allow you to store external input that's provided when you transition states.
Say stateB is transitioned to from stateA and needs to store a value that is _not_ directly computed from stateA but is externally supplied at the point of transition.
As far as I understand this isn't possible with the proposed solution? Am I missing something? This seems like a pretty common use case to me.
I thought I was just misreading it and failing to see where they stated what the new rate limits were, since that's what anyone would care about when reading it.
reply