From a third-world perspective, it feels like American politics being injected into the developer domain because of some previous biases that Americans had. Which is sad for a community that claims to be global.
Lots of Americans don't support this either. Of course, that doesn't actually matter to the people who have pushed this change through. They think that it's a righteous change, so it doesn't matter whom it annoys.
Lots of non Americans support the change too. Master was a terrible default name, switching it to a better name that’s also more inclusive language was a good idea. Where American politics infected things was the the reactionary response of people who are vehemently opposed to any attempt to fix problems that don’t directly effect them.
This whole 'master branch' outrage doesn't even make sense. Should saying things like:
"I've mastered computer programming." also be an offense?
We absolutely should deny and disregard these nonsensical demands _by principle_. What was even the actual case made by people who wanted this? And don't tell me "well it's not a big deal, just accept it don't whine about something so small", because that won't fly, or shouldn't at least.
I suppose the justification was not heavy enough. Master's degrees, master bedrooms, mastering a skill, and calling someone a master of their craft, in fact, still exist, and nobody seems to complain about thouse funnily enough. Just admit that this just bs.
Or maybe he was searching for "structure", the way Grothendieck was - in pure math, in systems biology, in complex networks (e.g. civilizations, culture, occult) and in individual behaviors
I wonder how many of these hype-chasing AI founders are going to take the path of self-enrichment while capitulating their startups when they get exhausted of searching for a moat.
I wonder how many of these hype-chasing AI founders are NOT going to take the path of self-enrichment while capitulating their startups when they get exhausted of pretending to build something.
How do I get into this game? Take a bunch of VC money, pay myself a hefty salary, don't give a damn about my employees if the whole thing goes bust. Must be nice, not having principles.
I mean, if you qualify that question like that, then probably closer to 100%.
What would be more interesting to know, is how many AI founders starts out as "not hype-chasing", but end up self-enriching/capitulate their startups regardless, basically turning into it rather than starting out like that.
Ah so like NIM is a set of microservices on top of various models, and this is another set of microservices using NIM microservices to do large scale OCR?
and that too integrated with prometheus, 160GB VRAM requirement and so on?
Looks like this is targeted for enterprises or maybe governments etc trying to digitalize at scale.
Here's the GCP doc [1]. Other live migration products are similar.
Generally, you have worse performance while in the preparing to move state, an actual pause, then worse performance as the move finishes up. Depending on the networking setup, some inbound packets may be lost or delayed.
It works when you are catching up. Japanese companies used the same strategy post-WWII. And a lot of other countries, Japan is just a striking example as it was so visible and quick. “Made in Japan” went from derogatory to a sign of quality in about a generation.
Surprisingly when you are in the lead and others have to catch up, IP protections sound much better.
When you are in the lead anything that puts others down is good. That doesn't mean the system needs it to operate. Why would we need a system that protects the country in the lead?
I am not arguing about morality or justice. I am just saying that it is unlikely to happen, as the countries which value IP protection have the most to lose from abolishing it. The people in these countries might have different feelings but I don’t think this is going to be a deal breaker any time soon either way.
Personally, I won’t claim much because I haven’t done any survey. IP protection itself sounds reasonable, but guardrails are needed because the incentives to bullshit are quite strong.
The US industrial revolution was based on it: Samuel "Slater the traitor" memorized designs from a factory he worked at in England and became rich after bringing them to the US.
> Wasn't this derogatory vs. quality more of a stereotype though?
Yes, but not entirely. Japanese cameras, for example, were basically cheap ripoffs of German models up until after WW2. Japanese motorbikes were infamous for being cheap and flimsy in the 1970s to 1980s. Same for the cars, being a Toyota was not a good thing before the 1990s. Sure, there was some inertia and this kind of reputation takes time to shake off. The changes in product quality were gradual and a bit earlier than the changes in perception by the market (the Western European one, at least).
> Japan has long history of craftsmanship so I imagine they made high quality stuff for a while.
So does China. The main thing is that the exports we see are the stuff made cheaply in factories, not the bespoke items crafted from raw materials by an artisan in their workshop. Japanese companies are happy to build on the cheap as well.
And Chinese factories can make very high quality goods, if they put some effort in quality control. I am willing to bet that at some point they’ll be undercut and will go upmarket for a larger and larger slice of their exports.
In my experience it’s usually a reference to the difference between pre- and post-WWII Japan.
Once Deming made it over there and sold the idea of statistical quality control they were at the forefront of manufacturing rather than a laughingstock.
There are possibly also longer term repercussions from abolishing patents in that people or companies will naturally instead protect themselves via keeping trade secrets instead. This will probably result in some inventions being lost to history instead of being on the public record once the patent expires.
How useful are patent records for rebuilding technology?
I imagine that patent is not a recipe, but description used identify infringements.
If goal is only to identify infringements, then I would leave bunch of stuff out of patents. (Later I could fill new patent for same thing just describe those parts that were left out in the first one)
In theory the patent is supposed to describe everything necessary to reproduce the invention. If something is left out that is critical then there isn't really any invention there and the patent shouldn't be awarded. I understand that in practice some patents are written in such a way to make this difficult.
Yeah, trade secrets will become bigger, so? You need to expose the product. Or the process, things get reverse engineer. Overall, the net effect will likely be positive if monopolies end.
You mean other countries patents, right? Chinese companies are happy to enforce their own IP rights and Chinese courts will enforce foreign patents in some cases.
The Netherlands was the last country in Europe to introduce patent law AFTER Philips stole bulb manufacturing technology from Edison (Philips is now a huge patent holder and actively steals ideas from startups to turn them into patents).
If you can't innovate, buy (or steal) someone else's invention, and use a government granted monopoly (i.e. patent) to prevent anyone else from innovating further and making a better version.
Maybe patents provide an incentive to be innovative, but they also create a barrier to innovating on top of technology that is protected by patents.
Some people remembering things and going elsewhere and using what they remember seems a little different from copying of millions of documents and schematics and plans.
I'd say it is the same difference between a police officer remembering a license plate for the getaway car of a bank robbery, and having pervasive automatic surveillance tracking everywhere everyone goes.
Yes, I guess it is very efficient to not need to spend any money on R&D, and just steal from those who do spend the money.
Will anyone spend money on R&D in this efficient world when the result is you just go out of business because you can't compete against anyone who does?
What defines what is and is not "valid" property? The entire concept of property itself only exists because it's a useful fiction. Prehistoric hunter gatherer societies might have had a loose sense of clan ownership over e.g. hunting grounds but the idea that you could parcel up an acre of land and own it would likely have seemed bizarre. Yet today some people spend their entire waking lives tracking who owns what properties
> What defines what is and is not "valid" property?
There are several ways to answer this provided it isn't rhetorical.
One approach is to examine how society collectively decides what counts as property. These decisions aren’t neutral or universal — they’re shaped by the power and interests of those who benefit most from them. I hope it's clear that there is a contradiction present between: "property is universal" and those who benefit most from property being true are those with the most property.
Historically, the ruling class has established what counts as “valid” property by embedding their preferences into law and enforcing them through two major systems: ideology and force. You and I are taught to accept these definitions through societal institutions like schools, media, and legal systems. These institutions present ideas like patents or private property as natural or universal truths, making alternative ways of thinking seem unrealistic or unthinkable. For instance, when people say things like, “Patents protect natural rights,” or “Every other system has failed,” they’re reflecting this conditioning — whether or not they personally benefit from it.
The concept of property is enforced through systems of control, like courts, fines, and even imprisonment. If someone challenges the validity of a patent, they stand to face financial penalties or legal repercussions. The idea of “valid” property isn’t just a belief — it’s something actively maintained through both persuasion and coercion.
Ultimately, those who gain the most from these systems (like corporations or wealthy individuals) have the power to shape both the ideas we accept and the rules we follow. They turn their interests into societal norms through a feedback loop of belief and enforcement. The system sustains itself by creating the reality it envisions - "hyperstition" is where our collective belief makes something real.
lets start that to be stolen, the thing needs to be tangible. and property needs to be a tangible thing. and by stealing, preventing from accessing also counts.
Perhaps the Chinese industrialists are rewarding the IP holders the same way video gamers do: with exposure. And after all, we’ve been informed many times: information wants to be free. And we’ve been reminded as well: if they weren’t going to pay in the first place this isn’t revenue lost.
When you don't defend something like a property, profit goes out of building it. And that's the opposite of what we want to do in a capitalist society. Building intellectual property is a positive-sum thing. It makes humanity better. This is something we want to reward, make profitable.
Yep, in 2021 the FBI was opening a new China related investigation every 12 hours. China steals billions of dollars worth of industrial knowledge and secrets from the US every year through industrial espionage.
