skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
According to his biography, he did initially try to cure his cancer by going fruitarian. Obviously, the cancer got worse instead of better, and he ended up needing a transplant. I suspect (and I have nothing to go off of other than his biography) that he didn't actually completely expect the fruit diet to work, and may have simply believed that if it was his time to go, it was his time to go, but his wife may have eventually talked some sense into him.

In America, normal humans can only be on a transplant list for their home state, but a few states also accept out-of-state folks who can travel to the state within X hours. This was obviously designed for people who live right on the border in a neighboring state, but Jobs was able to use his private jet to argue that he should be on the transplant lists for basically every state that accepts out-of-state people.

The main point is that it's possible he took an organ from someone in TN, because he himself let his own cancer progress beyond the point of salvaging the organ.
GDPR only applies to EU users.
They you're right back where you started: People fighting over enacting policies at the national level.
Solving some societal or civilisational challenge with supersonic flight seems very narrow minded now.
Yes I would like to fly to my work HQ faster but due to pandemic I have not visited in 3 years now and it’s been fine, so a better solution is excellent remote work tools such as HQ videoconferencing etc which is such an easier problem, yet many people and companies still struggle with it.
In the overall ROI for things to do, I bet we shouldn’t be building businesses that REQUIRE supersonic flight to succeed.
Thanks for the bad news! Not glad to hear it but glad to know something I didn't.

That said - so they would be able to sell some things in Japan that they couldn't other places.
If we had high-speed rail everywhere at 300km/h you can cross almost any country overnight, that radius of 3600km would give you 80% of all plane travel.
Arctic Vault includes code written by EU users, and there is similar legislation in non-EU jurisdictions, e.g. California's CCPA
> Big lie

Uhm, you might want to reconsider using a term which was literally invented by Adolf Hitler for his abysmally evil propaganda purposes.
You’re being very dismissive and condescending when your link does not back up your claim either, from what I could tell.

Also, from what I understand, this kind of thing varies from place to place. You might be correct about your own situation, but not about mine.
I disagree with how difficult merge commits are. It's not something to filter out in your view - it's a representation of an actual change made by combining two different versions of a document/code/etc... They are valuable indicators in history.

Furthermore services like Github add valuable valuable comments like the PR number that was merged.
I'm a crazy person who doesn't really use the "standard" functions for my APIs.

Instead I revolve around getIdAndFreshnessList(filter) and getItems(ids).

I've built tools to store items locally, and check if the id is cached and the date is fresh, and only request things that need updating.

I'm digging myself into a hole of being "too different" again. This is just another convention I'll be judged negatively against.
That's not what GP is saying.

In general, you're absolutely allowed to learn programming techniques from anywhere. You can contribute software almost anywhere even if you've read Windows source code. Re-using everything you've learned, in your own creative creation, is part of fair use.

Your example is the very specific scenario where you're attempting to replicate an entire program, API, etc., to identical specifications. That's obviously not fair use. You're not dealing with little bits and pieces, you're dealing with an entire finished product.
I don’t think that comparison makes sense. A GM of a sports team isn’t a dozen levels removed from the team and their target isn’t an ever changing field of competing goals. Changing out upper leadership at a technology company isn’t analogous to a general manager of a sports team.
Good point; if the code does not have a specified license then standard copyright terms apply and inclusion for commercial use should be verboten. It it's actually open source without commercial restrictions though, I don't see an ethical difference in using the code directly or for an meta analysis driving ML for enhanced code completion.
Absolutely not. 300 kph HSR rail exists in developed countries.

(2680 miles) / (300 kilometers per hour) =
14.3768064 hours

That's coast to coast in ~ 1/2 day.

Ships and blimps represent a much larger decrease in travel time over airplanes than rail. They perhaps pose a to be solved, but rail doesn't.
It's nice that it has instructions, but nobody read the instruction. tl;dr: type "run" to run the program.

10 print "Hello, world!"
20 goto 10
run

Also: What is the tech stack? Which basic version are you emulating?
Github does not own the Arctic Vault, there is an independent company behind it [1]. Given its purpose as a long-term archival, it is likely that exemptions to the copyright for (library) archival can apply here. [EDIT: This is probably not true, see the reply for the reason.]

[1] https://www.piql.com/awa/
> nobody is going after Facebook or Google

A lot of people dislike them and minimize their use.

More importantly, we are seeing a bait-and-switch. People agreed on GitHub storing, showing and indexing their code and issues, not using the code for Copilot, regardless of what the fine print in the usage agreement says.
> Nobody is really being hurt when a new tool makes it easier to copy little bits of code from the internet.

That's the first time I've heard copilot get described as copying little bits of code from the Internet. Copilot aggregates all github source code, removes licences from the code, and regurgitates the code without licenses.

Furthermore, both github and the programmers using copilot know this. Look at any one of these threads written by programmers about copilot. Using copilot is knowingly stealing the source code of others without attribution. Using copilot is literally humans stealing source code from others. Copilot was written for the purpose of taking other's code.
In germany, there is no fair use exception to copyright. Also, there is no IP most software principles: e.g. writing a specific loop, that even an (weak) AI could suggest, would probably be too simple to be protected.

What could be valid is a right to not mimic collections, but that would mean you cannot clone the Copilot, as input is mapped to a non-trivial collection of outputs.

Disclaimer: IANAL, but I do dabble in IT-law.
I haven't read this interpretation of the Arctic Vault project - presumably most users of GitHub are okay with their code being reproduced/backed up across many production servers for fault tolerance. Making an 'extra special' long-term backup in the Arctic Vault doesn't seem like a meaningfully different action to me - i.e. using a cloud-based host is essentially opting in to this kind of 'license violation'.

If they had taken one of their existing DB/disk backups and called it a vault, would that have been an issue?
I masquerade as proficient in this field and I'm pretty sure I've done that just by accident with git a few times. Assuming any developer on your team is much better than monkeys on typewriters when it comes to git will lead to disappointment.
This isn't interesting though. It doesn't even provide any value. It's a random guy that doesn't like GitHub, it could have just as well been a HN comment from yesterday.

It's just posted(not by the guy that made the page, mind you) to farm karma, exploit the news cycle and carve out some more space for discussion of this tired topic.
>Or Dawkins use his biology credentials to say something about philosophy/religion.

It may be hard to imagine now, but at the time several major religious institutions had hard positions on subjects his biological knowledge was relevant to. His writings were instrumental in bringing about the retreat of those institutions from certain corporeal claims.
Better tools do not make people be better. Just have a task done faster. The best hacker/ dev I know can code without an IDE. They only need a plain text editor and can tell how wrong the terminal is without Google.
Dogs with “violent temperaments” often get that way solely from abuse. In such cases, training absolutely helps, as does unconditional love. I have seen it multiple times, anecdotally.
First off, removing 2% of greenhouse gases isn't something to scoff at - it would be a really important accomplishment.

Secondly, your back of the napkin math doesn't seem great - you're just making up that gases would be cut in half with nothing to back that up. You seem to ignore the fact that electricity for agriculture would disappear but then you factor in electricity that would be added back for food factories, so that doesn't make sense either.

Then of course there's the fact that lab-grown meat doesn't require the vast swaths of land required by traditional agriculture. That means you can put food factories closer to urban centers, so now you've eliminated a lot of emissions from transportation.
Worst and Best Study Tips, Techniques and Habits [How-To]
Agree, and the airlines absolutely need to keep working to become more climate friendly just like we need to make road travel better.

But climate-shaming specifically air travel while at the same time driving a non-electric car or using air conditioning without having solar panels is very hypocritical because both of those and many other things are a far bigger part of the total emissions.
Software job searching 101: The how to
Try it and see :)
The difference appears when copyrighted material is repeated verbatim. And because it's obvious Github has no control over how much copyrighted material is being repeated verbatim. And that copyrighted material is intended to be used by commercial companies who copyright their own material and don't want to have their copyright challenged.
But it would still potentially have used code not licensed for commercial use as a data set for a commercial product, which is problematic.

GitHub really needs to clarify which code was allowed for inclusion here. Until then we're can only speculate And enumerate potential scenarios.
> Copyright has concluded that reading by robots doesn’t count.

Until someone trains a DNN to generate Mickey Mouse-like cartoons I assume.
Dogs won’t, by and large, attack your neighbor’s leg by default, unless they are provoked or have previously been abused. Nobody is advocating for letting them act like a feral animal.

But just as you teach your kids to have manners, we teach our animals to have them too.
Thank you, and great username for the clarification :).
Okay, Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books ever, but referring to its message as if it were the message of the whole Bible is incredibly disingenuous, misleading, and unlikely to get anyone to actually read what you're talking about -- how would they know it was that _one_ section?

And quoting it in Latin with no translation is incredibly pompous.
I use Obsidian - just markdown files. I use a Gatsby tool to convert it to a static site and upload it to my Digital Garden - https://notes.binnyva.com/

> Obsidian is adding features that most editors don't support which is kind of a vendor lock in

I'm assuming you mean block level referencing? Or Frontmatter at the beginning of the Markdown?
I haven't found this to be an issue - but worst case, you can choose not to use it.
Too bad he couldn’t have gotten his tour guide and friend in too:

> When they returned, an interpreter was waiting for Jobs. Oshima waited outside in the car.

> "When he came back out an hour later, he told me: 'I would like to have a garden like that.'"
Air travel is not a problem because the emissions per kilometer are that bad but because one can easily travel one or two orders of magnitude farther than one usually would.
You disagree but it sounds like you make the same points.

The post you reply too says "we need minimal zoning". You say "its hard to work because of too many restrictions".

Am I reading it wrong, but you disagree but seem to agree on the main points: Government needs to get out of the way to allow progress.
The issue isn't an AI reading copyrighted code, the issue is an AI regurgitating the lines of copyrighted code verbatim. To be clear, humans aren't allowed to do this either.

And sure, nobody cares about your stupid binary tree, but do they care about GNU and the Linux kernel? Imagine someone trained an AI to specifically output Linux code, and used it to reproduce a working OS. Is that fair?
Copilot is lifting entire functions from GPL code. Legal technicality aside , I know I'd be upset if I gpl'ed some code and someone stole large parts of it.
That's only true if the supply satisfies demand.
We already have nuclear sites such as Hanford leaking radioactivity into local water systems. We have Rocky Flats poisoning whole communities. While these are the aftermath of poorly managed nuclear weapons projects, it's testament to our extremely poor handling and the extreme costs of nuclear waste.

Regarding power generation, Fukushima has dumped gobs of radioactivity into the ocean. Even reprocessing facilities like La Hague release radioactivity into the channel which then flows into the North Sea.

The problem with just letting radioactivity leak into the environment(and those who claim "fewer people have died from nuclear than any other energy source"), is that the effects of radiation contamination may not be felt for decades, in things like early cancers, reproductive problems, and birth defects, and be hard to trace back to their original source.

Radioactivity is extremely dangerous, this is a well-known fact, and to not acknowledge the great challenges around managing nuclear projects and the waste they generate, just reduces the credibility of nuclear apologists. Nuclear could be done safely and effectively, it's just very very very expensive to do so and thus corners get cut, and we end up socializing the costs into haphazard sites, which will cost billions of dollars to maintain over the next few decades alone, and we all know nuclear waste will stick around much longer than that.
Fantastic way of putting it, thanks.
I don't know - I think a variety of coding approaches may make for some interesting AI code suggestions in the next year or two.

I do pity the poor algorithm that has to parse sense into my coding idiosyncrasies.
Since the parent tried to make the case that people only have pets for vanity. This is my point; there are lots of reasons people have pets, and the top one, usually, is an emotional connection.

You do not derive the same emotional value from eating meat. One is sustenance, and the other has been bred for centuries to have an extreme emotional connection with humans.
6,000 years of evidence isn't enough? That's what makes this a discussion about philosophy, not reality.

Because people do something, it's moral? Gangs are considered moral? The existence of evil means there is no morality?

> I refuse to accept

Then the truth doesn't matter.
> Copyright has concluded that reading by robots doesn’t count. Infringement is for humans only; when computers do it, it’s fair use.

So wait, if I write my own AI, lets call it cp, and train it on gnu-gcc.tar.gz with the goal of creating a commercial-compiler.tar.gz then I can license the result any way I want? After all most of the work was done by the computer.
Meet Wu Dao 2.0, the Chinese AI model making the West sweat
Since 20nm, a node step does not necessarily have anything to do with sizes and is purely a marketing term. Even if there are size shrinks, they are hardly comparable if a switch to another technology (FinFET -> GAAT) is involved as well.
> > As a human, I am allowed to read copyrighted code and learn from it.

> Of course not. Reading some copyrighted code can make you entirely excluded from some jobs - you can't become a wine contributor if it can be shown you ever read Windows source code and most likely conversely.

You can of course read the code. The consequences are thus increased limitations, like you say.

What you mention is not an absolute restriction from reading copyrighted material. You perhaps have to cease other activities as a result.
People buy homes in Menlo Park with all cash because there will be multiple bidders and not being contingent on mortgage approval is the only way to win the bidding.

Most of them then go and get a mortgage.

The calmaters article has zero data about "investors from Asia". It's an assumption.
There was a joke that all ML will be immediately banned the moment there's a Copilot for RIAA-licensed songs.
If you don't want people and/or AI to read your code, why would you post it anywhere? Just post binaries and call it freeware.
Something has gone terribly wrong with the keyboard-handling, half the time it misses a keystroke, or doubles a keystroke, or has very noticeable delay.

This is on Firefox. It doesn't seem to have those problems on Chrome.
> Mr Biden said he gave Mr Putin a list of 16 critical infrastructure sectors, from energy to water, that should not be subject to hacking.

This sounds like a concession of major weakness on the part of the US. I guess we already knew that Russia has outmatched US’s cyber capabilities, but I was surprised to see it acknowledged by Biden in this way. And if Russia ignores this edict, it means they’re doing so in the full knowledge that it may be seen as a declaration of war? Which would lead the US to respond with its own war-like actions? High stakes.
There is an exception paragraph for various kinds of archives in GDPR: https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-89-safeguards-a...
If it sparks the necessary discussions I don't care if it was written by Joe Random Nobody or Joe Biden.

> It's just posted(not by the guy that made the page, mind you)

Others would complain if the author himself had posted this.
Downvoted. There's a difference between "commercial purpose" and "global player", and Microsoft crossed another line. One of many.
This model doesn't learn and abstract: it just pattern matches and replicates; that's why it was shown exactly replicating regions of code--long enough to not be "de minimis" and recognizable enough to include the comments--that happen to be popular... which would be fine, as long as the license on said code were also being replicated. It just isn't reasonable to try to pretend Copilot--or GPT-3 in general--is some kind of general purpose AI worthy of being compared with the fair use rights of a human learning techniques: this is a machine learning model that likes to copy/paste not just tiny bits of code but entire functions out of other peoples' projects, and most of what makes it fancy is that it is good at adapting what it copies to the surrounding conditions.
>"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

That's how it's written. It provides protection for hosting controversial content posted by users, based on the fact that the host didn't write it, endorse it, or promote it.

If the host has an active hand in doing those things, they are no longer merely hosting. Same goes for surpressing or censoring.

The "another content provider" means the host is not involved in determining the content. But treating posts differently based on that content is not meaningfully different than an editor choosing what to publish.
Chemicals Responsible for Basic Tastes [pdf]
I don't follow - If you are on a freshly cloned repo, none of the commits were made when the current branch was master, they were made on another user's git repo before your repo existed.
Plants are carbon neutral, not carbon sinks. They don't put the fossil fuels back into the ground because they decompose before they're buried.
Because people accept a EULA when they give their data to FB or Google. Github is exploiting a grey area to leverage a big fat chunk of GPL (or other) licensed code in ways that are perceived to be a technically probably legal, but morally very ambiguous understanding of these licenses.
> A usual reminder that we're not getting smaller. This is marketting speech, transistor gates are stuck at 20ish nanometers.

A quick perusal of WikiChip seems to suggest that this isnt true. Pretty much everything is getting smaller, including Fin pitch which should directly affect transistor size (not an EE, certainly could be wrong there). You're absolutely right that terms like "7nm" have become decoupled from a specific measurement and are largely marketing terms, though.

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/10_nm_lithography_process

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/7_nm_lithography_process
The only thing you are is too correct.
I'm no fan of Jobs. I think he achieved some notable but transient things, but I also think he was an egotist who treated many people badly.

> he died an ignorant death at his own hand

But I wonder why you say something so unkind? Is it not possible that he was, in the end, simply afraid and not able to fully face up to his mortality?

As for him possessing philosophical insight, I think that is more likely to be something attributed to him by those who (as you put it) deify him.
The ugly truth though, is that the process of programming can be shamefully bad. Often times the in-progress branch commits are the opposite of the platonic ideal commit message, for common human reasons. By 'common human reasons' I mean programming is messy, and it's often unclear why something does or does not work until after something functional is arrived at.

The important thing is that your tools, specifically git, works for you, and not the other way around, so 'bad' commit messages like 'before', followed by 'after' are totally fine while working in the branch as long as it gets cleaned up during merge. However, they are the antithesis of useful months or years down the line while playing code historian. (Hilariously, the answer to the question "what idiot wrote this code", is sometimes the reader!)

So is it a lie that sometimes after lunch on a Friday, the act of programming is often a series of off-by-one, off-by-two, off-by-one-the-other-direction compile-test-edit-commit loops? And that we'd prefer to be thought of as a genius that wrote some fundamental-to-the-company code 5-10 years later, with beautiful commit messages that live up to some platonic ideal, rather than "that one dumbass"?

It's a lie the same way that people who wear makeup are 'lying'. It's true under a very specific, weird framing, but it doesn't really agree with reality.

There are notable high profile exceptions like publicly viewable patch series against the linux kernel, but you're deluded if you think those aren't edited before being released for human consumption.
Asteroids could pay for so much space exploration
That “benefit” is tenuous at best. Making this feature mandatory or default would be an objective downgrade, but I’ll grant that it would be a solid optional feature.
Sure but they could move almost literally anywhere else.

If someone said you could live in one of the most desirable places in the entire world on an 'ordinary' job but you had to share a room (which TBH could just be your significant other anyway) that would seem like a great deal right?
Why is human understanding going to prevent this? Doesn't it seem like this is precisely the de facto function of Copilot: a license laundering machine?
there's a nice example here of it reproducing carmack's famous inverse square root function from Quake 3 (sans GPL, of course)

https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309

this is clearly copyright infringement, and if it isn't: it should be
How does he expose the git stuff? Is that open source?
What kind of behavior?

I presume when you say you're a fisherman, you're doing this professionally, i.e. have a boat and go out to see etc?

If so, what brought you to HN? Are you programming?