skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> That said, do many see value is in this?

GitHub don't host runners for Linux × arm64, so if you need this, you need to self-host. You can also run custom AMIs with pre-installed packages, which can speed up workflows that depend on those packages.

> When things go wrong, you need people going through logs working out that there's nothing actually wrong with CI…

I'm on a small team who've been running the Philips Lab self-hosted runners for the past year. It hasn't been difficult to operate. Once deployed, it pretty much "just works".

In my experience, the things that go wrong originate from the GitHub workflows themselves. We usually have to review workflow logs regardless of whether the workflow uses a self-hosted runner or not.
So you’re saying that the more popular a game is, the more likely it is to be pirated?

Sounds like it has more like the desirability of the game driving piracy than the other way around.
Apex Legends from Respawn/EA was basically launched like that. It had a reveal stream, where they announced the game going live, and released it immediately, along with all the promotional material and content creator collabs. It's massively successful so it worked out.
I’m not sure about that. If I were a single-issue voter it would be on the potential for competence, and I see myself as a vanishing minority.

For example, going into the 2016 election, more Americans claimed to value honesty highest among the qualities of candidates. That did not signal to the future President what trait he should pursue to gain support for re-election. He stood to claim credit for winning a War on Coronavirus by following career policy people (the safest thing, rely on their competence), but chose to vilify them instead. I know CEOs, and none would have been so incompetent.

When it comes to the legislative branch, the way it apparently works is: the process of forming regulations bestows congresspeople with insider-trading knowledge. Some congresspeople choose to believe wingnut lobbyists whose industries depend on subsidies, and then privately hedge. Others take the regulatory lessons back to their district and essentially spread the insider-trading knowledge around. This is their only job —- they don’t make “hard choices” —- yet Americans choose ten qualities before competence.
I honestly think that "perpetual until something" licenses should be forbidden or at least should guarantee the full price paid back.
No, that tort specifically relates to depriving someone of, otherwise damaging their property.

We've agreed it's not stealing. We've agreed that not all piracy is immoral, for some definition of immoral.

I think we can agree that this specific tort does not apply.

Which specific thing in the social contract, some simple verb such as "stealing" are you equating piracy with. Then we'll have something concrete to discuss I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

I don't even know what my personal stance on piracy is but the subject is clearly more complex than saying that theft applies only to physical objects.
Not sure how well it fits what you're looking for, but if you're not already aware of tom7/suckerpinch, you might get a kick out of some of his videos -- e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TFDG-y-EHs
https://www.videogist.co/videos/how-much-horsepower-is-a-hor...
I don't know, might be. Didn't really bother to figure it out yet, since it's not so important for her.

There are a few other things (I'd call bugs), that are more annoying to her. And I also don't really no what to think about it. Maybe it's because of the uncommon processor.

For example, it starts to
vibrate (like it's being unlocked) repeatedly sometimes when it downloads updates from Playstore and it doesn't stop until it's finished and there's nothing you can do about it.

And Firefox crashes when you want to switch a video to fullscreen.

But she's fine with it, because she knows it's the fairest phone she could buy and it hopefully lasts long and maybe updates will solve the bugs above soon.

And I guess that's the attitude you must have to buy a fairphone, and then it'll be fine. I hope it shines when we smth is broken the first time :)
I would assume, that this is partly because one can get familiar with the pirated product and then many people decide it is worth buying or supporting the creator. Or spread the word about the existence of the product.
Some motorcycles (and cars) have switches to disable ABS and ESP to make them feel more like old ones.

Nowadays, driving a vehicle without these technologies seems crazy. But those machines are not for everyday use: they are a special kind of entertainment for passionate people, those who most likely know what they are doing.

It still happens to be surprised by a situation, like the one top post seems to describe, and even with great experience it can become tricky to stop, with or without technology.
I found it delightful and appreciate the lengths the author went in explaining why this exists and the goals of the project. A breath of fresh air compared to the usual sea of boilerplate and links to proprietary chat apps I don't want to use.
Nobody is talking about a license agreement, that’s not what the social contract is.

And you very clearly benefit from all those things you claim are immoral, and the systems that brought them about, so I find myself skeptical to your claim they’re bad. It seems more like you disapprove of your inability to satisfy your sense of entitlement. After all, if you dislike these concepts so much, why do you want the very things they’ve produced?
A curated list collection of ChatGPT protection prompts
I have spent a whole weekend curating a list of protection instructions (nothing is fool proof) for GPTs. This list is compiled from studying hundreds of leaked GPTs.

I also made a comprehensive video discussing these protections: https://youtu.be/O8h_j9jJFjA

DISCLAIMER: nothing is fool proof
> They could still be full of crap, yes, but you don't necessarily want to discount them, either.

I agree. But going from this, to calling a rumor "weak" evidence is a long stretch.
One does not merely copy the numbers in a bank account when committing theft. The key part is depriving the original owner of the use of the item.

Whether you think piracy is right or wrong, there is a crucial difference between traditionally understood stealing or theft, in that the original owner no longer has the thing. With copyright infringement that’s not the case.
The equivalent concept is fair dealing https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright
> Hacker spirit is owning your machine to its full extent.

I thought it was about owning anyone's machine to the full extent. Did this change during the past 30 years?
Sure, why not? Or why not splatting + GAN since the GAN will be much more computationally light and you get high diversity from the splatting already? All worth a shot, right? Lots of things to explore.
Learn to spell his name then.
Human laws do not follow laws of nature, or laws of logic. Trying to rationalize why something is or isn't owning or stealing is a misunderstanding.

"It is not missing anywhere, so it isn't stealing" does not apply. What applies is more like "This paper says it is stealing, so it is." The paper says it because a human wrote it there, as a result of whatever complexity going on in their natural neural network.

Please notice I didn't say "right", "wrong", "good", or "bad" anywhere.
Instead of getting into a shouting match over whether piracy is or isn’t stealing, here’s an interesting story.

Bill Gates made an interesting comment regarding software piracy in the 1990s. At that time, software piracy was rampant in China, and Microsoft’s Windows operating system was one of the most pirated products. In response to this situation, Gates remarked that if people were going to pirate software, he would prefer they pirate Microsoft’s software.

His rationale was strategic: if people in China became accustomed to using Microsoft’s Windows and Office software, they would be more likely to continue using these products in the future, including in business environments where legitimate software licenses are more commonly purchased.

(Whether things worked out as he envisioned is a slightly different matter.)
In a morally-equitable world, “I spent a lot of resources making this content. please pay before consuming it” means the artist and/or the artist’s team spent time honing their craft, money on food and housing, and some more money on materials.

In the current world it’s rarely like this. Now it’s “we as a production conglomerate loaned an artist 500k to produce some content that we expect to make a profit on, made them use our very expensive in-house resources (at MSRP), and we pay them $0.03 for every $1 we make until they pay off that loan”.

The perception those conglomerates want to spread is that there is a direct social contract between you and the artist who’s work you are pirating, but the real contract is between you and the conglomerate themselves. Even if (and usually especially if) that conglomerate screws over the artist.
> Some newer languages don't even deal in classes at all (Rust for example) and with good reason. If one says we need classes for having objects—No we don't.

That's specious reasoning at best.

A class basically means a way to specify types that track specific states and behavior. Afterwards this materializes in other traits like interfaces and information-hiding.

Don't tell me Rust does not support those.

Also, C++ precedes Rust and it supports free functions and objects without member functions from day one. Rust is hardly relevant or unique in this regard. What Rust supports or not is not progress, nor is the definition of progress whatever Rust supports.

> And objects are a concept to manage state over the lifetime of what the object represents, so that might be a worthy concept, but a class?

You're showing some ignorance here. Classes and objects are entirely different concepts. An object is an instance of a class. A class is a blueprint of an object. This is programming 101.
Agreed. Still, reverse engineering unsupported software or hardware should be made legal.
I hope you've played Disco Elysium
piracy was never stealing, stealing requires the removal of where it comes from, which copies do fundamentally not do

piracy is causing hypothetical financial damage by braking some laws

with the irony that sometimes there is no financial damage, or that the damage is such a small fraction of the claimed damage to a point where persuading it should make no sense

through sometimes it also can be big enough to destroy companies
I mean if you have a filesystem you've already got a way to tree-structure your data...
An open-source url shortener
Hey folks,
I just wanted to showcase my new side project.
Let me know what do you think :)
We were baking AMI’s like this for a little while but our current setup is quite even fancier - you can do everything in containers and then a distributed in cluster buildkit cache and registry be hosted and backed by S3, and not only do you get a remote reusable cache that syncs extremely fast but you no longer have to rely on external artifact registries being flaky, which if you pull from Dockerhub frequently know this is an actual significant problem.

We actually looked at using this project from OP at the beginning of our ci journey but eventually decided on actions-runner-controller due to its higher level of robustness and configurabiltiy
Any actual games rendered with Gaussian Splats?
> bought digital content

The fundamental problem lies here: you haven't actually bought anything useful. You didn't buy content, you bought a license, and that license is merely "you might be able to view content in a very specific way for an unspecified amount of time that is completely at our discretion".

You still have what you bought when they revoke the license, it's just in a different and less useful state.

That whole system needs to be crushed into dust to make a real difference. Make it so that buying a license to content isn't a thing - that you are now actually buying content - and all of the things that come with ownership will follow.

But I don't see any viable path to that happening. A sightly more possible outcome would be to have a minimum standards/requirements for digital content purposes - a set of required rights/restrictions/components for any digital purchase the all licenses must incorporate or cannot compromise on.
Not only sales, but market share/power. Imagine if J3QQ4... did not work for Windows 98... Linux on Desktop would be already perfect 20 years ago.
Also in these transitive definitions, stealing is about taking. And in the case of piracy (communicating information to others without permission of the original source), nothing is taken.

The person that came up with the idea still has it. The photographer still has the picture. The programmer still has the program.

It's just about what another person may do with it, the one receiving the picture. May they also send it to someone else? We could have different ideas about that, but calling it "stealing" is inaccurate.
people are not taking anything, they're copying
It's interesting that America, steeped in their self described "liberalism" and "market economy" has become a nation of renters. You don't own anything, but rent it. If you need to transport yourself, you rent an uber using your phone which is rented from google, on the internet connection rented from AT&T.

It's important to note that I'm not saying you need to own a car to live up to the American ideal, but you'd expect the freedom conscious American to demand rights, making them the true owners of their possessions. You'd expect the American to demand guaranteed access to transportation.
To be fair though, jetbrains use case is fairly unique, as they basically want to implement parsing for as many languages as possible, all while doing it in a verry structured and consistent way, with having many other parts of their infrastructure being dependent on that parsing API.
I think it's fair to say that those requirements are outside of the norm
You can infringe in the UK by serving copyrighted content to users in the UK regardless of where the actual training occurred. This take on copyright law is asinine and juvenile and I’m not surprised the judge struck it down.

Can you imagine if you had no piracy occurring in the US when users download pirated content from a server in the Philippines and you could only handle the case under the Filipino legal system?
> The key part is depriving the original owner of the use of the item.

I know that’s been a tribal shibboleth of piracy since the 2000s, and I’m sympathetic to the moral argument to this view… but it’s just factually untrue (both in terminology AND in law)
One extra detail. They reserve the right to revoke your license but they still reserve the right to keep selling the product if the laws allow.

This allows the following hypothetical situation:
1. You buy content A from producer X through a company 1
2. Producer X and company 1 decides to finish the distribution agreement for whatever reason
3. Company 1 revokes your access to content A.
4. Now producer X seals a deal with Company 2 for distribution rights and company 2 has no obligation on giving you access to content A, because why would they.
5. If you want access content A now you have to buy it again from company 2 without guarantee that it will still exist.
I'm sorry but the "cure" for that requires political change involving the stepping over of some people's corpses. You can only do that once people are sufficiently angry.

Healthcare? People pay to be and stay healthy. The money was earmarked specifically for this purpose. Also, in the long run, you will be able to cure diseases even those "healthy" children have.
Taking a book from the library without a library subscription and returning it is still stealing.

That corps can brick the device you paid for or block access to your media is an different matter.
It is always good to remember that Jewish people include people with dark skins and black people.
Why the US economy has powered ahead of other rich nations
Sorry, I am new to HN. It seems the link was truncated after submission. Here it is: https://github.com/0xeb/gpt-analyst/blob/master/protecting-g...
Analogy: doing business in high-crime or corruption areas. Only "big mean nasty" type companies can survive the onslaught.

"this is why we can't have nice things"
Excuse my spamminess (and for hijacking the current top comment), but I would like to recommend the innocent looking episode 162

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-43zh_za_eQ The Creation of Meaning - The Denial of Death

( transcript https://www.philosophizethis.org/transcript/episode-162-tran... )

"The Denial of Death is a 1973 book by American cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker which discusses the psychological and philosophical implications of ..." clickbait! well, no, not clickbait, but death, but maybe it's the same thing? listen and you'll find out :)
> act of consuming products outside of the framework that enabled the funding for creation of these products.

Are you a corporate lawyer? Because this sentence really doesn't mean anything but can be made to mean a lot depending on the context you decide to frame it in.

Regardless of that, it highlights the fact that you haven actually read the article itself. Which I highly suggest as it does a good job of pointing out a big issue with how that framework currently works towards consumers.
It is well known that ChatGPT is losing money.

The Hallucination Problem could be partially solved using beam search, which expands upon the idea of greedy decoding by considering multiple potential sequences at each step and choosing the best overall sequence, rather than simply choosing the most likely next word at each step. IMO, they don't do this because it's too expensive, so sometimes the system allucinates.
Your definition supports the OP. All three require 'taking', which doesn't happen with copying
Matrix also provides the ability to back up keys in the server, but you select a separate passphrase for encrypting them before they're uploaded.

(Yes, it would be nice if the user didn't need two passphrases for this use, but Matrix cannot safely revert to key derivation because client could accidentally leak the master password to the server due to existing implementations.)
Spanish here. You're overtly exaggerating, Spain is not becoming a dictatorship. This is the right and far-right having a tantrum because they've not been able to secure a government. Go spread your propaganda elsewhere.
I find this so confusing... I would feel exactly as I felt when I was picking a license and imagining all the different scenarios my choice might lead to.
Tesla failed at battery swapping. Stellantis says it may have the secret
Because people here eat this shit right up, unfortunately.
Childish? Yes.

Understandable? Also yes.

Don't forget defeating DRM for ethical purposes is a grey area. Maybe even illegal.

Example: those trains in Poland [referred in the article]. I think what the company did by contracting the hardware hackers to investigate (by RE) what was going on was illegal, and what they did was illegal too.

What if they hadn't? The company would have lost the support contract.

The law is out of sync with morals and what's better for society.

So, while not recommended, the tone is acceptable or, at least, understandable.
Those things you can do locally as well, you might just need an update from time to time to make new analyses available. At least unless they require doing statistics or whatnot on all the genomes they have.
There is a clear expectation in law for at least 100-200 years now that owning a copy of a piece of media doesn't allow you to copy or perform it. This is by no means a new concept, and you broke the social contract the moment you copied the DVD. This may not be printed on every book and DVD, but it is very clear - you own the physical copy, not the text.

There are other gray areas related to property and copyright. This is not one of them.
We generally have to invent so many names it’s dizzying. No wonder we’re using analogies.

Also, terms like “pirate” and “rockstar” are fun to use. Maybe we like to use names that distract us from the purely abstract, digital reality.
this has been said many many times - nothing is taken

people are copying

and what do you mean by "you're not allowed to"
Taking can simply mean “to gain or acquire”.

If that’s your argument… it’s unsound linguistics and legally.
Even the bottom income quintile in the US uses iPhones, especially young people. They are not that expensive.

Knowing someone has an iPhone tells you nothing about their wealth/power.

What people think it does tell them is where someone is on the cool / weird spectrum. See:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38578103
Ask HN: What is a non-technical book that's most helped your career?
Mine is probably Mindset by Carol Dweck.
So, just like the rest of my code then
Copying is “gaining or acquiring” so would come under “taking”, sorry.
> Windows doesn't have coreutils or nice command line software to do fun or powerful things with.

Sounds like you've never actually used windows for real tech stuff...
There was no rugpull. The product is MIT licensed up until the commit that introduced the BUSL license.
Why? The way health insurance works, all of those are profitable treatments. There is no "choose one or the other". Sick children/adults becoming healthy adults that can pay for health insurance is not a moral dilemma.
We write these laws on paper, and not on two stone tablets because they aren't fixed.

You make it sound like "once it's written down, that's how it is. forever". Which is also not how law works (not even how religious "laws" work).
Correct! The parent post here isn't really productive, I also have some misgivings on this school of internet debate where a disagreement needs to start with any of:

- False.

- Incorrect.

- Nope.

Is it just me or is this needlessly smug? Again, the parent isn't productive, but a terse "You are wrong." in the grandparent isn't really a good way to start a productive conversation either.
To be fair, historically, capturing people was likely always far more lucrative. The Mediterranean piracy for instance far was bigger (by several magnitudes) than the much more culturally popular Caribbean piracy.

The Barbary pirates enslaved about 1.25 million people between 1530 and 1780 (and it was a massive threat in the Middle Ages and ancient times we just don't really have reliable figures).

It was such a massive threat that coastal villages all but disappeared throughout much of Mediterranean Europe. The barbary pirates went as far as Ireland, England or even Iceland to murder an enslave people.

This was an issue up until the 1800s (the first foreign war the US fought was against Morocco and Tripolitania) when the European powers finally took a break from fighting each other to do something about their common enemies who were terrorizing their subjects for centuries.
I urge you to scroll to any point in the readme and read, and recount what you read, because most of it is repetetive and fluff for no (obvious to me) reason