If you viewed the source and reproduced a software project you don't have a license to redistribute, that's cut and dry copyright violation. If the code looks similar enough you are toast. That's why there's the concept of a "clean room" reimplementation. The same is true if you feed the source into the context of an LLM and asked it to reproduce it. You have done nothing but introduce the possibility of transcription bugs.
Since you are clearly an AI enjoyer I asked my local LLM to summarize your feelings for me. It said:
> As evidenced by the quote "I think a disclaimer is a carte blanche to do literally anything", the hackernews user <gruez> is clearly of the opinion that it is indeed ok to do whatever you want, as long is there is a sign stating it might happen.
* This text was summarized by the SpaceNugget LLM and may contain errors, and thusly no one can ever be held accountable for any mistakes herein.
That's not what the person said. Give a little bit of the benefit of the doubt when interpreting posts. Using the context of a person who grew up and was educated in the Anglosphere. Obviously the ivy league is going to be one of the more attractive options for finding a larger group of elite mathematical researchers. They have a ton of funding compared to most places and draw in many other brilliant people from around the world. That doesn't mean there's no elite thinkers anywhere else, just that it's inevitably going to be a strong contender for where a very bright person looking for that kind of environment would consider.
> Last time I plugged in an HDMI source and the darn "smart" television showed the image for 0.5 seconds before displaying a menu that asks me to press a button on the remote to show the image.
That's entirely the fault of your crappy smart display with some crappy OS and has entirely nothing to do with HDMI as a standard.
I would think as a plug and play standard for A/V stuff, HDMI is one of the farthest along the "just works" spectrum for the vast majority of people. Occasionally I see a device where there's something stupid like switching to a different HDMI source doesn't switch the audio source and you have to use some dumb OSD menu with many nested levels to get to the audio sources, but again, that's not HDMI's fault.
I have had quite a few broken HDMI cables in lecture halls at uni and in meeting rooms at various work places, but I think that's the reality of any connector that gets plugged and unplugged tens of times per day (especially by people who don't care and don't have to pay for them when they break). They just need to replace the cables more often.
> That's entirely the fault of your crappy smart display with some crappy OS and has entirely nothing to do with HDMI as a standard.
Sure yeah, but I don't buy it. If you create a standard that is too complicated or too feature-creeped to be implemented fully and that lack of full implementation means the fundamental role of the standard breaks down, that standard might be part of the problem.
I too could envision a solution that theoretically works perfectly, and all people are doing it wrong if it doesn't. But such standards have to be made with reality in mind. USB-C is another one of those. Cool – now I have a ton of USB-C cables none of which tell me on the cable what capabilities they have. One can't support USB-power delivery, the other doesn't work with video up to certain resolutions, etc.
I get that more data means higher frequency and that this directly translates to more problems, but nobody (at least no consumer) asked for the complexity of the HDMI spec. We want to connect a cable and see the picture in 99.99% of the cases. If that doesn't work 100% of the times the standard is at fault. The base functionality of the thing needs to be so dumb and so clear that it just works, even if the other side doesn't even know what an EDID is. That was the task and the result is catastrophic failure.
I think an awful lot of this could be solved by requiring the ports to export the information they get to the device, and requiring that if the devices can reasonably be able to display the information that they do so. PCs, phones, tablets would all tell you about the cable and the connection. Things without screens and interfaces would not be required to add them, though.
It's not that the cables support varying specs (which I actually have no problem with--you shouldn't have to pay for features you don't need, and some features trade off vs cable length), but that we have no easy way to find them out or test them.
It's a company who bought the domain of the exact name of the largest open source project that they directly compete with and then advertise themselves on it? This is at the very least unethical. You can't just use a competitors exact name to run a website that tries to snipe users looking for your competitor and call it a "fan site".
The comments on this submission are pretty strange. What are the chances that a bunch of non-sockpuppet HN type of people are in support of this kind of garbage? Generally with sort of abysmal behaviour like the email communication in the article, there's people going to bat against actually defensible actions purely in the name of civility on HN. These bitvise people seem bad from both angles and yet the of early comments are either ignoring the issue and redirecting (e.g. "who even uses putty") or outright defending their shitty behaviour?
It's definitely unethical but the creator of Putty keeps insisting and repeating that the Putty website is the long old homepage style URL and "always has been" and "if people search they can find it".
I think if they actually have a problem with it and are not just repeating that to cope they need to start acting like they have a problem with it. Trademarks need defending and you come out the door with the mental model that it's yours, you own it, the other group are in the wrong. If you opened your trademark dispute with "Well our trademark has always been X and people know to find us at X" you're gonna lose your dispute.
It's just hard to argue it's actually a real problem if the individual it's affecting keeps sort of pretending and saying that it's not even if deep down it is.
You can buy domain names with competitors names in them. People do this all the time. If you don't want people doing that you need to register the names yourself.
No, no you can't. I don't know where this misconception comes from.
Trademarks are trademarks, regardless of technology. I can't open a store called McDonald's that isn't a McDonald's but I sell cheeseburgers. Simply... moving this online doesn't magically make laws disappear.
Tech people have a strange misconception that tech overrides laws. No, it doesn't. Calling it "disruption" doesn't count, either.
If bought googlesearch.org but it's my own search engine that's illegal. You can't do that. Even if I did g00glesearch.org that's still illegal.
Even if I don't use the Google name, but I use something similar, maybe with a similar font, that's still illegal. Because, obviously, the intent is to deceive consumers. You can't do that. You can't pretend to be a brand you're not.
So someone who has written something and made it available for the common good, and makes no money from it, should now go and buy every possible domain that people might use in a deceptive manner.
This is a great example of what drives people away from providing anything for free.
Yes, all the ones actually worth owning are only a few dollars if you have a unique project name, you don't need "every possible domain" you just need one that looks legit.
Unfortunately this is the world we live in where if you don't then someone else will and they'll abuse it so you have to act defensively.
Either you put the time into the project and care about it in which case you should spend the few dollars a year defending it from drama like this, or you don't care even a few dollars worth about the project in which case just let whatever happens happen because you don't care, a .org is the price of a few coffees.
Only a few parts of the world you can leave a bike unlocked on the street, and the internet contains the whole world.
i could not tell which one of these should be more legitimate than any other. registering even just a few of those is going to add up to a sizable yearly bill.
It's a namespace problem. You can't just ban people from registering anything that might be confusing like that. If we followed your idea the internet wouldn't work.
EDIT: They're not deceiving users though? The first section on the index page links directly to the real putty site. They're very clear about all of it.
EDIT2: Nope. We really don't want DNS "moderators." All of us have seen what happens with forum moderators. Like I said if that were done the internet would not work. It's not about the cost it's about being unable to clearly define what should be banned.
If you want to see a great example
of how moderation like that both stops legitimate use and fails to stop malware go look at smartphone app stores. The result is borderline unusable garbage.
Selling mushy stuff for plumbers and kids? No problem!
It takes a simple reporting system, couple moderators costing peanuts compared to what we pay for the names and a clear set of rules forbidding intentionally misleading users.
> You can even get double free in Rust if you take the time to build an entire machine emulator and then run something that uses Malloc in the ensuing VM. Rust and similar memory safe languages can emulate literally any problem C can make a mine field out of..
That doesn't have any relevance to a discussion about memory safety in C vs rust. Invalid memory access in the emulated machine won't be able to access memory from other processes on the host system. Two languages being turing complete does not make them the same language. And it definitely does not make them bug for bug compatible. Rust _really_ does enable you to write memory safe programs.
A trademark on the word "Rust" has nothing to do with whether the language itself is proprietary. Clearly and Objectively.
What you can call something and whether you can legally make the thing or have a permissive license to an existing implementation are two completely unrelated things.
For example, you also can't make a C compiler and name it the "microsoft C compiler" due to your lack of trademark right. Does that mean C is also proprietary?
I'm not a python dev, but if you read HN even semi-regularly you have surely come across it several times in at least the past few months if not a year by now. It is all the rage these days in python world it seems.
And so, if you are the kind of person who has not heard of it, you probably don't read blogs about python, therefor you probably aren't reading _this_ blog. No harm no foul.
Pretty incredible for such a short argument to be so inconsistent with itself. Complaining about counting CPU cycles and actually measuring performance because... modern software development is bad and doesn't care about performance?
I think the point of the comment you replied to is that "reviewing code" is different in a regular work situation of reviewing a coworkers PR vs checking that the LLM generated something that matches what you requested.
I don't send my coworkers lists of micromanaged directions that give me a pretty clear expectation of what their PR is going to look like. I do however, occasionally get tagged on a review for some feature I had no part in designing, in a part of some code base I have almost no experience with.
Reviewing that the components you asked for do what you asked is a much easier scenario.
Maybe if people are asking an LLM to build an entire product from scratch with no guidance it would take a lot more effort to read and understand the output. But I don't think most people do that on a daily basis.
reply