skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It is unlikely for a generic, short segment of source code to fulfil the requirement for copyright that it comprises an actual "work".
A Weekend with GitHub Copilot
Israeli camouflage tech makes soldiers ‘invisible’
I find this intuitive for thermal throttling, but not for power throttling, though I'm not sure changing the definition makes sense now (it might not even be practical). I've frequently fired up some process manager and seen it at > 50% CPU despite the system not running anything interesting, and it always takes me a second to realize that it's throttled down to like 400 MHz and the process manager itself is consuming what's left of the CPU.
Hmm. What if your unit tests are statements about your code? I view them as a way of locking in functionality and saying that the code does or doesn't do things for certain inputs. That's what unit tests are in my mind. I find it strange to view tests as only way a of catching bugs. You just use them to say what your code is/isn't capable of doing.

Using tests as a way of finding problems seems like not a great way of saying code has issues x,y, and z but they are a great of saying something does a, b, c. If you are going through a refactor you might not be implementing a, b or c correctly anymore and if your tests are designed well this will be caught.

If we are only talking about bug catching, you are right there are better tools. But I'll say if somebody says code does something and there are no tests demonstrating that fact, I don't trust it generally unless it's something like a game where it's hard to test certain things.
We don't need a new GPL.. ML creating a derivative work is still a derivative work. So if said derivative work ends up in a non gpl compatible code base, that code base is then violating the license. I would assume that GitHub/Microsoft would have had the forethought for this, but who knows. And in any case, I am not a lawyer...
> (And who else would try?)

Apache foundation?
I’ve long wanted to implement a browser plug-in which uses Facebook as a data store but posts everything encrypted so it looks like garbage from their perspective.

I figured they would rapidly implement tech to detect that sort of thing and we’d wind up in an arms race I would ultimately lose.
No, you cannot charge GitHub for using your code in Copilot. It's the same as you cannot charge all humans that read your code for reading it. You are free to make your code private, and charge people who want to read it. But you can't make your code public and hope to charge money to people who do "fair use" things with it. It doesn't matter how your code is licensed.
I think that's what BTF and CO-RE are for. They are new; they may not have existed when you had this problem. https://brendangregg.com/blog/2020-11-04/bpf-co-re-btf-libbp...
If RedHat were to be dissolved, there aren't enough companies paying for work on Free Software to absorb all the engineers that work at RedHat. For Free Software, this is one of the big dangers of having so many people working at the same place. If RH goes down, there are going to be a lot of projects with greatly reduced maintenance and some outright abandonment.
Hinge: A Breakup Worth $2B
> So does my red shirt, no?

No, the light reflected by your red shirt is not like the light from the sun, because it is nowhere near the brightest object in view. But you are right that if you made a lamp with the same spectral power distribution as light reflected by your red shirt but several orders of magnitude brighter, it would still probably be outside the range considered “white”, even after adaptation.

> how they might be tweaked to be better for education.

I think the current disposable cardboard ones which cost like 50¢ each (maybe less?) when bought in bulk are pretty good for education.

If you walk around at night with diffraction grating glasses looking at different kinds of lamps, you can learn a lot about what kind of light they produce.
not only is "problematic" problematic, so is "permissive".

more permissive for whom? because the GPL is the most permissive license for users of the code: GPL guarantees, they're permitted to see the source.
lol how do you figure that rental housing restricts total supply?
It's a protected job title in most state/provincial governments

For example, "In Ontario, the titles 'engineer' and 'professional engineer' are restricted by law ... When individuals are found to be using the restricted title 'engineer,' the courts can impose fines, restraining orders and jail time" [1].

It's just hardly reported/enforced in the software industry because most "software engineers" do not work on things that affect public safety or can result in loss of life.

[1] https://www.peo.on.ca/engineering-licensing-body-clarifies-u...
This is going to sound contrarian or skeptical, but I wonder if there's any solid support for "flow" being necessary for creative work. So much of what we believe about the workplace and creativity is just folklore.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great feeling, and if someone in the workplace believes that it helps them work for whatever reason, I'd be supportive of it.
> Where does this end?

In the context of Audacity, wherever a community-managed fork begins (à la LibreOffice)—at least until it gets bought out (à la CentOS).
Highly recommend Lean theorem prover for programmers who want to self-learn some mathematics
Building construction is full of last minute changes too, it's just that the scope is usually more limited. But a lot of that also boils down to the cost to make changes.

You better get the foundation of your 100 story tower right, because it's a big, costly pain to fix it later. When update costs and consequences of errors are similarly high in software, you see real effort spent on getting it right before shipping.

When costs to update are low and costs from error are low, less effort is spent on getting it right first.

Personally, I've rarely seen a specification in my career, let alone anything rigorous enough to write a formal specification from. And, even if there were a rigorous specification, everything is subject to redesign at any moment. Not a whole lot of value in formal methods in that kind of environment. You don't tend to get a structural engineer to certify your plans for an overnight camp in a two-person tent.
Those were not "critical systems". It was all the desktop computer used for basic office work (email, word processors, etc).

Major mission critical systems are managed by the country's Ministry of the Interior, and haven't had a major hack (yet), as far as is publicly known.

And besides, how are those poor souls gonna connect to Facebook during their mandatory 10 o'clock coffee pause ?
Infinite Universe Theory?
Is there any well developed theory of an infinite universe even if theoretical? Would an infinite universe have cosmic background radiation ? Would an infinite universe have most observers see far away objects moving away from them ?
Kaseya VSA Supply-Chain Ransomware Attack
Wow, I was not expecting _that_ result.
also, they dont mean bunk if business side of the equation isnt behind them... following formal methods means that business also follows formal business methods (which would reduce sudden changes and mistaken product designs etc).

too many times "dev" is treated like a roving circus that can just change their routine on a dime with little consequences...
I don't understand all the yelling about this Copilot stuff.

1) It's not your code that is proposed by copilot, but a mix of thousands and thousands codes, that can not be linked to one specific person. It's like you take 1000 portrait photos and make a new one. How can you prove your photo has been used?

2) How what's done by Github is causing you any damage, directly or indirectly? If you want to sue someone, you'd better prove any damage to a judge.

3) Because of all of this yelling, I'm pretty sure Github will add a per-repository option to disable code scraping. But I still don't understand what you'll win.
> Does your opinion only apply to unit testing or to automatic testing in general?

In my experience once people learn about tests, they want to see 1. tests per commit and 2. high code coverage. This leads to unit tests, which don't really test much of anything, and what they do test (the layers under you like the compiler) is by accident.

The most useful testing would be integration tests on the side, and then regression tests because they're guaranteed to have already found at least one bug.
I regret I have but one downvote to give; not only is it wrong (and ineffective!) to yell at one's employees, that's also not what happened here: Ebrahimi was the CEO or a partner that Jobs sorely needed, not a report. As it happened, Quark didn't port their software -- and NeXT suffered as a result.
I think we're assuming that they used GPT3 (or whatever) on code that was stored on github.com in accordance with their TOS, which means (if I understand correctly as a non-lawyer) that they didn't share it under the terms of the GPL, since they can't, but if whatever licenses the code already had attached were not sufficient, that code was also licensed to github for the purposes of indexing, analysis, and sharing with other github service users.

Does this mean that if you picked up GPL code from gnu.org and put it in your public repo, you're in violation of the GPL for illegitimately licensing that code to gihub under a non-GPL-compatible license? Maybe!
Yes, and that is not a great prospect.

however, it's going to happen regardless, since this way of living is not sustainable. The only choice that is ours is whether we prefer to anticipate this change and build a decent alternative, or whether we prefer to have it inflicted on us.
The GPL allows commercial use, provided that you ship the source code to the software bundled with the GPL3 source code you use to your customers. Publish a mobile app on any app store with a GPL3 snippet and suddenly you must provide the source code to your entire app under GPL3 terms. That in turn might violate the licenses for the other libraries you use, so mixing libraries might permanently leave you open to lawsuits from either copyright owner.

The GPL also inherently violates the Apple App store guidelines, so you cannot use any GPL snippets for iOS applications you plan to publish there.

There's workarounds for GPL requirements (notable the web loophole, writing applications that don't distribute binaries but generate web content instead, thereby not violating the GPL by not providing the backend source code) but even that has dangers (for example, when you include a snippet of GPL3 code in your (compiled) Javascript code).
I'm fond of formal methods, but I'll offer the usual counter-example:

Formal methods struggle to scale up to real-world problems. There is no formally verified TCP/IP stack. There is no formally verified TLS or SSH implementation. That's despite how immensely useful and reusable such implementations could be (that is to say, high demand, and yet no supply).

As I understand it we're not even close to being able to develop a formally verified TLS implementation, but if we were, it would likely take the form of an internationally acclaimed PhD thesis, akin to CompCert. It still wouldn't mean formal methods are cheap and easy.
I have managed several extremely large fleets of computers and I can tell you they all use frequency scaling. I seriously doubt that your statement applies to "most server farms" when properly weighted.
This one is much more hot and... not at Wikileaks as well.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/18/russia-sorm-nokia-surveill...
I don’t think it’s necessarily the commenter’s solution but it does seem to be the one the world is going all in on.
… what. Usage restrictions, especially for profit, can absolutely be in your code’s license. I don’t see how regurgitating code verbatim can be considered fair use.

Github is likely only using appropriately licensed code.
How would the GPL have prevented this, exactly?

More explicitly, how would a license that gives everyone the right to copy, modify and redistribute source code for any purpose without compensation or attribution have prevented Github from building a tool that copies, modifies and redistributes source code without compensation or attribution?
In space, no one can hear you phone home.
I believe you are referring to a "Skyhook", in case anyone wants to look that up.
Neither were the raccoons
Statistical modelling doesn't imply that GPT-3 is merely regurgitating. There are regularities among different examples, i.e. abstractions, that can be learned to improve its ability to predict novel inputs. There is certainly a question of how much Copilot is just reproducing input it has seen, but simply noting that its a statistical model doesn't prove the case that all it can do is regurgitate.
Easy solution: File with the IRS, ask since you are dead, you don't owe any future taxes, right?

Trust me. Things will start moving very quickly.

Exceed the speed limit. Reject the fine claiming you are dead.

Trust me. The possibilities are endless and take my word, I would enjoy them.
Ouch. Then what's the recourse? She is being denied basic human rights. Maybe the simple fact of applying and trying to make it to a publication/social media will make someone move their sorry ass?

I live in Canada and we have our own stories of people becoming non persons (stateless). It is horrible that those take years and decades to resolve. It is beyond my understanding how we can claim being civilized countries and still allow crime like this to take place and have no special laws to fix such gross fuck-ups promptly.
I think it's clear they spend as much as they want to, not as much as they're permitted.
I don't know how it works, but in the US, there are legal proceedings against unknown people all the time, e.g. "Jane Does 1-3".

So just because they don't admit someone specific exists, doesn't mean they have to ignore that someone exists.
There were at least three PoCs AFAIK. Surely there were more.

Problem is, the results too closely replicate the source, as in "Suck just as much". And thus there is no demand for this kind of thing.
This is the essence of it.

Formal methods could be useful when requirements are clear, can be strictly defined, aren't going to change suddenly, and the stakes of building it wrong are very high. Avionics. Medical devices. Cars. Some kinds of embedded systems. Core parts of OS Kernels, databases, network stacks, cryptography libraries, etc.

Most software in the world is not like this. It exists to support businesses trying to make a buck in a changing world, either from consumers or from other businesses. Requirements are messy, shift frequently, and agreeing on what they are at all is more than half the battle. Nobody really knows the minutiae of quite how the whole product works but it doesn't really matter. Money is still coming in. The risk to those businesses of even rather bad bugs is generally low. A few customers have a bad day because they see a 500 error in their browser when they're trying to order food, or they can't summon their ride-share for 5 minutes. The issues are fixed and life goes on. The perfection of formal methods is the enemy of good, and would be a net negative return on investment, much as programmers who (understandably) love perfection and clarity and rigor might want it to be otherwise.
Well, if there was no air travel, rail lines everywhere would likely be practical... again.

If trains could go 250km/h on average, that 5000km trip would take 20 hours - that's plausible for an overnight trip, leave 6pm, arrive 10am. A flight over this is distance is probably a much more stressful red eye.

Sure this is quite speculative, but perhaps less so than hyperloop dreams, or supersonic aircraft that somehow have no environmental impact.
As I recall they also briefly had routes to VZ and BR
How loud was it and how often did you experience it?
There is a huge problem for them to concentrate so much on verbatim recitations. That's not the criteria used for copyright... see for example Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison tests.
Can you charge me if I read your open source code, and then write my own?
that doesn't solve the "relative measures make the graph useless" problem though, does it?
AMD Ryzen 7 5700G Review: Fastest Integrated Graphics Ever
It's not clear why it would need to be if it runs as a online service. I would say this is analogous to a search engine index. Google for example likely has lots of GPL code in it's index in some transformed form and yet there is little dispute that this is legal.
If you think that we use too much fuel, increase the price of fuel. Don't just randomly oppose specific technologies that use fuel on the grounds that you, personally, yellow_led, don't feel those technologies are necessary.
> Where does this end?

It could maybe be ended in the bugtracker if enough people complain - there is an entry for this already:

https://github.com/audacity/audacity/issues/1213
You can disagree all you want, I'm making the statement. If people (ie. real people, with families, not SV urbanite idealists who think they got it all figured) loved concrete life so much so much, SFH wouldn't be that popular.
Most of the algorithms built into common software for converting from one color space to another (especially e.g. RGB to CMYK) are pretty terrible, and even though it’s a tricky problem with no right answer per se, the automatic transformation could be much better. A competent human photoshop user is going to get substantially better results than current algorithms almost every time.
Strong middle-eastern Frodo vibes on this one
Do not forget the part at 44:04 (for which the "epilepsy warning" is for really... or actually a few minutes later, but he starts around there to explain what follows).
The Ryokan futon we got in Kinosaki are the best ones I've ever slept in, super comfy! :)

And of course they magically spawned in our rooms after we returned from our last tour of the towns famous onsen for that day, perfect! :)
Hm I felt it does, but I might've missed some situation. Why do you feel it doesn't? Could you describe a scenario where it'd be misleading?
It’s a matter of what question you’re asking - how much CPU is X using and how much headroom does it have vs why is my computer slow.
> If it's throttling to lower the temperature…

This gives the ability to go over 100% before thermals equalize, since max power would follow a Newton cooling curve.
That would be the wrong result in almost all cases.
I used to connect the line-out from my CD player to my Commodore 1702 monitor's RCA luma jack (I think) to make a primitive visualization that changed with the music, but this is amazing.
> Can you defend that?

Yes. Though I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, so the delivery may be less than ideal.

Copyright gives PersonA legal control over a subset of PersonB's behavior, even when PersonA is not involved. This is hard to defend, unless you are fine with people being property. Slavery gives PersonA legal control over PersonB's behavior. Under Slavery, PersonB has one master with lots of control. Under Copyright, PersonB has lots of masters with small controls.

Is there a way to believe that ideas can be property without it being a system of slavery? There's no logical way to make that work. Think about the moment that copyright "expires". At that instant, does matter disappear? Did property vanish? What changed? The only thing that changed was each person suddenly gained a little more freedom—the ability to share a new sequence that they couldn't share before. The property rights that the copyright holder had over other people went away. People became more free.

Anyone who thinks for themselves should be able to quickly deduce that these laws are shades of slavery laws, and not about property rights. I figured that out before I could legally drink. It's not that complicated. The question is why are so many duped? I think it's probably a question of priorities (I would say Freedom of Speech and the Press are more fundamental, and then Freedom to Remix and Distribute would be next) or perhaps it's because before the Internet there wasn't enough uncontrolled bandwidth for the truth to get out, or perhaps it's that the people are bombarded over and over again by the big lie from the moment of childhood—look at the FBI Warnings at the beginning of Disney Movies, or the dozens of times per day that you see the phrase "All rights reserved".
https://github.com/audacity/audacity/discussions/889
Absolutely, if this really matters to you I think the only solution is to characterise the CPU over an afternoon or two and build a model based on the data rather than what the Manufacturer told you.
Yeah, I watched the whole video straight through with my mouth wide open. What in the heck!
I don't see your analogy here. You want ML to be unregulated like woodworking as opposed to medicine. That's actually not a good analogy at all, since even woodworking in service of people is quite regulated via building codes, you're just free to practice as a hobby.

Medicine and law are fields where being a hobby is much harder without using other people as guinea pigs rather than yourself, so it's regulated in any sane country. So it seems regulation follows to fields which can have significant impact on regular people's lives and is more dependent on the nature of the field itself than of some bad actors. Of course bad actors are often what prompts the regulation but it's not exactly a great argument to say we don't need speed limits if no one ever crossed it.

Does AI need regulation? Probably. If copilot accelerates that process then good. But it's also outrageous how much more this community cares about the non-violation of perceived open-source-code-freedom than all the other evil crap AI is used for (like in literal concentration camps). The amount of shit GitHub is getting over this is magnitudes larger than for all the evil stuff Google and Facebook have done with AI. But no comment from here. Presumably because you weren't the customer (or so you thought). When women were mailed material telling them they're pregnant even before they themselves knew but no one batted an eye here. But woe be someone who steals code you _already released for free _ now that's a step too far! Zuckerberg was right, y'all care more about the dead squirrel in your yard than a genocide across the world.
> What better way to promote said Progress

There are a lot of better ways. Having more information being public and free, and usable by tools like this sounds like an excellent way of promoting progress.
It's not about Copilot, per se -- but it's clear that most users probably didn't understand when then signed up that they're giving Github (now Microsoft, let's not forget) the right to use their code, at all.

I've never been comfortable with the idea of trusting IP in places like Github, Google, etc. Although I find Copilot amazing, I find the use of user's code as distasteful as I do understandable.
Yeah, that what we did in 2017 - the fabulous Kyoto train station, Aquarium and mainly the fantastic train museum! :)

Missed all the temples and shrines though. :P
The original thread about Copilot contained a post from the dev at github. He only answered a couple of softball questions, though.
Are they Bayesian? It would be good if ML models were Bayesian (they'd be able to show uncertainty better) but they usually aren't.
And a rework of that in english between England and France called "The Tunnel"
It's very clearly visible on the Wine wiki that people who have ever seen Microsoft Windows source code cannot contribute to Wine due to copyright restrictions:

https://wiki.winehq.org/Developer_FAQ#Who_can.27t_contribute...

I think OP has a point here, personally.
It's not about not crashing. C lacks memory safety, which leads to many bugs, many of which are security vulnerabilities. Memory safe languages such as python or rust just don't have those problems. The vast majority of languages are memory safe but only C is to-the-metal fast. Well, until Rust came along.