Yeah this is sort of the point. Much of JavaScripts ascendancy is simple it’s monopoly on being able to run native in browser. Wasm lets you bring other languages to the browser.
The author didn’t mention using the browsers web console or “how do I use rails console in the browser with wasm?”. That’d be interesting to me. Can I write Ruby in the web console and see things change live in my wasm app?
One of the reasons that Apple does a bit of due diligence during the onboarding of a developer and establishing a developer agreement is to ensure they can reliably take legal action against developers that abuse the system.
The possibility of being banned from the Apple App Store ecosystem and/or legal reprisals is one way to deter unwanted behavior that can't be blocked through technical means.
> We don't really need equality, we need an equitable outcome.
Let's set aside for a moment that it isn't even clear that "equitable outcome" at the level of a society is desirable, lets just consider the fact that every attempt to use force (i.e. government regulations, taxes, penalties, laws, etc.) to move significantly in that direction has resulted in catastrophe with the societies devolving into systems of corruption, authoritarianism, and scarcity. Have you discovered some new mechanism to avoid that outcome?
How many times do we need to experiment with communism, socialism, or other utopian philosophies before we realize they don't lead to a better society?
Scandinavia with a tax pressure of 50% or something paints another picture than you do. What is probably more clear is that something of a mix between socialism and capitalism have been the most successful. Probably depending on a lot of factors, including implementation details.
The biggest misunderstanding I see in these types of discussions is that there is a lossless conversion between binary floating point representation and decimal representation.
Very few values have exact decimal and binary floating point representations.
There is no science-based predictions that climate change as we understand it today, will lead to Venus #2. That idea is just fodder for climate hysteria and sci-fi fantasy films.
We've got only a very limited understanding of exactly how the current climate works. We have (and have had for a very long time) crude understanding that more CO2 == more energy from the sun retained == more hotter overall.
We've got a Chesterton's fence here with our existing climate as it was between a long time ago and 1940. Sure, sometimes it gets too cold and sometimes it gets too hot, but it's mostly something we've gotten used to.
Once we get into a situation where all sorts of enormous systems with enormous inertia get out of whatever balance they've been in until now change, we're off into radically uncharted territory. It's not something we should gleefully jump into just to see what happens.
We're dancing on a cliff in the fog, we may even be wile e coyote dancing on a cloud.
"mad max" is "turn off all fossil fuels"
"venus" is an example of what can happen with too much CO2 in the air
One of those is actually a fictional thought experiment, the other's actually quite real. The magnitude of how bad the real one is is pretty terrible.. I guess I should just trust you that we can't possibly become venus; is 1/100th of venus tolerable?
"Between madmax and venus" is the path we (civilized, happy people) need to follow over the next 100 years. Hopefully it's a pretty broad path.
> It's a race between turning into venus and turning into mad max's thunderdome.
It is hard to tell how serious you are in that comment, but just in case, worrying about runaway greenhouse gas effect turning Earth into another Venus is climate hysteria.
Poorly thought out energy policies due to climate hysteria have a good chance at creating considerable political unrest though (not sure about "thunderdome" level of unrest).
Turns out when you restrict access to energy (e.g., by increasing its cost), people get upset.
> Ruby is slow and encourages an esoteric convention over configuration style of OO code.
I think you are commenting on Rails, not Ruby when you refer to "convention over configuration". Even in Rails I'm not sure what "esoteric" means in your comment and that approach isn't even related to the object-oriented concepts.
Does your theory apply to the content consumed during the training of LLMs? If not why not? Where should we draw the line regarding intellectual property rights?
3. The line to draw is 10 years to commercialize, and then release into public domain. Statute of Anne was 14 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne), but 10 is better for today's age.
> The line to draw is 10 years to commercialize, and then release into public domain. Statute of Anne was 14 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne), but 10 is better for today's age.
I'd vote for politicians who push for laws like this. Sadly none do.
My understanding is that the whole reason GPL has its stipulations is to counter-balance the lack of commons caused by commercial exploitation and expansion of copyright. So yes.
I completely agree, that's the part that I like about the GPL. That's why I'm a bit iffy about removing copyright outright (as it would mostly affect open source projects, proprietary software rarely has an available source that would be made free by such a move). But I see the point.
I mean the goal of GPLv3 and other copyleft licenses is to ensure that innovation building on the licensed work is also made available so others may continue to innovate, no? In my mind reducing copyright terms is aligned to that goal. You can disagree with that goal, but I don’t see anything inconsistent about reducing copyright terms and allowing copyleft to extend for a longer period.
Even so, I think in most cases if a piece of software has been unedited for 10 years it’s either feature-complete or obsolete. If it’s been under development for those 10 years, the original version being released into the public domain probably isn’t a significant threat to innovation by way of closed source improvements being made.
The view across both is the same: people should be paid for their labour. So authors should be paid for the books they write. The line isnt that hard to draw.
The issue here isnt the IA's provision of brand new books that are still being published; this few would say should be legal. We're talking dead authors, books no longer in print, or books published so long ago that the second-hand market (which offers no pay to the author) is the place to find them.
As soon as works transition to "second-hand markets" we're no longer talking about the labour of the author being remunerated. At this point, it's pretty clear that it's a net benefit to society to make creative works publically available.
2. LLMs are an incredible step forward in humanity's progression.
3. 10 years from publishing, then public domain afterwards. The content must be commercialised to have copyright; if it's available for free, it should already be public domain, because copyright is supposed to help you make money, not help you control the use of information.
That is a very misleading summarization. It is a short article. The law requires several conditions:
* approach a police office
* approach has to occur "knowingly or intentionally"
* the officer has to be "lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties"
* the approach has to happen *after* the person has been ordered "stop approaching or retreat
Well to be fair to Mike, I also summarized these details with "approaching".
If someone is approaching me, I'm trying to do something else, they're harassing me, should it really be okay?
The other night, I was walking down the sidewalk, and some dude I've never seen held up the first bump and said what's up!? I was surprised, kind of kept on walking and he says "fuck you too". That's okay, but if I'm like get away, and he's getting in my way, following me, then yeah, fuck off. Cop sees that and he still doesn't stop, why not a ticket. That's better luck for fist bump bro than getting popped in the jaw.
It sucks cops abuse some things, and some people harass cops. It's not one way or the other, my read between the lines is this article is one sided.
"lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties" so .. and in duty officer?
But if it requires the officer to tell the person to stop or retreat(that isn't vague) then why do we need this law? There is already a law that you must obey lawful orders.
