swhalen

There are considerations beyond just comparing the number of collisions. If a human driver causes an accident, they can be held to account through a legal process. If a self-driving car hurts or kills someone, who is held accountable?

Do they genuinely expect someone in their third year of undergraduate study to read and even partially understand Newton's Principia Mathematica? It is famously unintelligible to modern readers, even those with knowledge of physics.

I hope someone makes one of these things that has been trained without any concern for 'safety' or propriety, just for the sake of comparison.

Echoing the sibling comment from byhemechi, performance sailing vessels generally do not sail directly downwind (or directly upwind for that matter).

The sails are positioned at an angle to the wind, so that they deflect the incoming air in such a way as to propel the craft forward. It might help to imagine air "coming out the back" of the boat.

The fastest set-up is for the boat to travel roughly perpendicular to the wind, with the sails set at (approximately) 45 degrees. In sailing jargon this is called "reaching".

The speed of the craft is determined by the balance between the force exerted on the sails by the air, and the drag (air resistance) and friction between the boat and the water -- or, in the present case, the ground. In a world without friction or drag the boat would accelerate indefinitely, provided there is some wind to deflect.

Note that although it's not generally how fast boats are sailed, "sailing" a wind-powered craft directly downwind faster than the wind is also possible by, for example, using propellers.

> It seems like the end goal of copyleft was to fight back against copyright, not to have copyleft.

Whether this was the original motivation depends on whom you are asking.

You may disagree, but the "Free Software" movement (RMS and the people who agree with him) essentially wants everything to be copyleft. The "Open Source" movement is probably more aligned with your views.

> A programmer can read available but not oss licensed code and learn from it. Thats fair use.

If a human programmer reads some else's copyrighted code, OSS or otherwise, memorizes it and later reproduces it verbatim or nearly so, that is copyright infringement. If it wasn't, copyright would be meaningless.

The argument, so far as I understand it, is that Copilot is essentially a compressed copy of some or all of the repositories it was trained on. The idea that Copilot is "learning from" and transforming its training corpus seems, to me, like a fiction that has been created to excuse the copyright infringement. I guess we will have to see how it plays out in court.

As a non-lawyer it seems to me that stable diffusion is also on pretty shaky ground.

APIs are not copyrightable (in the US), so Wine is safe (in the US).

The suppression of government bond yields and money creation via quantitative easing were needed if states were to pay people's salaries during lockdowns. Governments would not have been able to raise that much money on the open market without central bank intervention.

My layman's understanding of the GDPR was that it was the primary website (i.e. the website you are actually and intentionally visiting) that could store your data on the basis of a legitimate business interest -- for example because they need that information to deliver some stuff you ordered from them.

However someone seems to have found a legal loophole whereby third parties ostensibly are able to track you on the grounds that their business is tracking, and they therefore have a legitimate interest in tracking you.

Hopefully this loophole is eventually struck down in some French or German court, and the GDPR will one day be applied as intended. Tracking is not, and will never be, a legitimate business.

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think anyone needs to deploy the code in order to infringe copyright: they just need to distribute the code to a third party (hence copyright -- the right to copy). And on the face of it, Microsoft would appear to have distributed Tim Davis's code, in compressed form, as part of the trained language model in Copilot.

There must be a line past which copying is no longer "fair use", otherwise no copyrights in code would be enforceable at all. I suppose it is up to a court to decide, but in the Tim Davis thread from yesterday it looked to me like Copilot was emitting entire, nontrivial functions verbatim.

Why can't Tim Davis (or another software author whose code is emitted verbatim by Copilot) demand that Microsoft take down Copilot, or at least the part of Copilot that contains his code?

Microsoft is distributing his software without a license, isn't it?

I think it's just the western coast of North America that has this problem, rather than the entire Pacific. For example in New Zealand, which is in the Pacific, there were never any sea otters. Urchins, regarded locally as a delicacy, are not particularly abundant.

Good. Many "cookie management providers" deliberately act in bad faith. See for example the now standard requirement to "object" to so-called legitimate interest uses of personal data. The GDPR was intended to ban such behaviour and I, for one, welcome seeing the law enforced in line with its general intention.

So do many classical computer algorithms.

I think it's probably fair to say most cosmologists would consider her views marginal, but she is certainly not a crank. My (limited) understanding is that ΛCDM fits cosmological observations extremely well; however, neither dark matter nor dark energy has actually been shown unambiguously to exist. 'Mainstream' cosmology invariably also includes inflation, which remains essentially a speculative idea unsupported by any hard observational evidence. Sabine Hossenfelder has become a popular commentator by drawing attention to discussions of these and other issues.

I don't mean this comment to be critical of the OP, who is undoubtedly acting in good faith, but how after all this time is this submission not somehow flagged as a duplicate?

Does the fair use exemption (or an equivalent) exist in all countries?

These satellites have marred the night sky. There is more to life than broadband availability.

Latour and social constructionists more generally are quite influential in, for example, social anthropology (including in the English-speaking world).

It seems to me that encapsulating analyses in bash scripts would help with reproducibility.

You might want to think about cross-currency IRS and FX products as next steps, because they're more common hedge instruments for corporates (your likely market, if you ever want to go in that direction) compared with options.

To monetize the API I guess your only option would be to partner with an exchange (or something like that) to get access to the necessary market data. A decent API for valuations and pricing would really be a breath of fresh air.

The documentation suggests that this currently only supports single-currency IRS, and it's also BYO market data.

To my knowledge there isn't anything like a RESTful pricing/valuation service in the market, let alone one with integrated market data, so there might be an opportunity there. Existing services also tend to only have "enterprise" sales/pricing structures, which is a pain if you just want to try something out.

I am somewhat exercised by this. I like Unity and have grown accustomed to it over the years, and in any case I think having choice in software is a positive thing. I hope that the community will continue development of Unity.