rsync does what was designed to do and the lack of scope creep is not a bad thing. There is "fpsync" - another tool on top of rsync (which was mentioned in one of the comments at article's page) that covers the parallel processing use-case: https://manpages.debian.org/bullseye/fpart/fpsync.1.en.html
Gifts do not confer obligation. If you give me a screwdriver and I use it to run my electrical installation service business, I don’t owe you a payment.
This idea that one must “give back” after receiving a gift freely given is simply silly.
If your neighbor kept baking and giving you cookies, to the point where you were wrapping and reselling them at the market, don't you think you should do something for them in return?
> By the way, Software Update in System Settings allowed my Mac to go to sleep during the “Preparing” phase, despite the fact that the battery was charged to 99%, so when I returned home from a workout I unhappily found 30 minutes remaining. Sigh. Whatever happened to “it just works”?
All the people that were fanatically dedicated to the concept of not shipping user-hostile software retired or got laid off or quit.
The state of care and level of user compassion in modern macOS is at the nadir.
Apple's been shipping user-hostile software for decades. I quit after they closed the gap in the wall that allowed me to add a song to my ipod without going through the monstrosity called iTunes.
The corporate culture shifted steadily at Apple following Jobs’ death. It was obviously a turning point for the company and while the change wasn’t overnight, in the ten years that followed, a lot of people moved on, because (obviously) Apple will never be Apple under Jobs ever again.
Because many of them had been with the company a long time (and were thus old), they were replaced by mostly younger people who had less experience with what makes Apple Apple.
In my personal opinion, the soul went out of the company. It wasn’t immediately when Jobs died - to his credit it took more than a decade for the momentum of his vision to die.
Today, Apple is just another multinational, nickel and diming their customer base for services revenue, cooperating with the totalitarian surveillance state (not that they have much choice in the police states of the PRC and USA in which they operate/can’t fight city hall), shipping incrementially improved products (and incrementally worse software), and misleading their customers with clever marketing. It’s just business. It used to be something else entirely.
Prompting the AI is indeed “do[ing] it yourself”. There’s nobody else here, and this code is original and never existed before, and would not exist here and now if I hadn’t prompted this machine.
Sure. But the sentence "I am a programmer" doesn't fit with prompting, just as much as me prompting for a drawing that resembles something doesn't make me a painter.
Copyright infringement is a tort. “Illegal” is almost always used to refer to breaking of criminal law.
This seems like intentionally conflating them to imply that appropriating code for model training is a criminal offense, when, even in the most anti-AI, pro-IP view, it is plainly not.
> There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
I think it’s very much an open debate if training a model on publicly available data counts as infringement or not.
If you publish your code to others under permissive licenses, people using it to do things you do not want is not something being unwillingly taken from you.
You can do whatever you want with a gift. Once you release your code as free software, it is no longer yours. Your opinions about what is done with it are irrelevant.
But the license terms state under which conditions the code is released.
For example: MIT license states has this clause "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
It stands to reason that if an LLM outputs something based on MIT-licensed code then that output should at least contain that copyright because it's what the original author wished.
And I saw a comment below arguing that knowledge cannot be copyrighted, but the code is an expression of that knowledge and that most certainly can be protected by copyright.
Okay, so list which websites I can use to watch all kinds of content that I can find on YouTube.
Vimeo? It's basically dead. DailyMotion? It could've been an alternative, but they've recently deleted most old videos. Peertube? Nice idea in theory, but lack of content.
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Tiktok all fulfil the 'whatever topic I am interested in this second, there are videos about it' property, though admittedly they do not have near as much meritorious long-form content as YouTube.
reply