lmkg

Godot's recent announcement spelled something out clearly: when a mid-tier rando contributes, you can provide feedback to that person and possibly help them grow into being a senior contributor or even a maintainer. That possibility of helping the human behind the code is part of the motivation for doing open-source. Mentoring shitty devs is itself giving back to the community, in a different form than the code itself is. And that is qualitatively different than giving feedback to an LLM.

I mean that's still basically what they tried to do at the time. They were trying to get them through web standards committees and everything.

IIRC a big reason it didn't end up working was because NaCl was such a "big" technology and asm.js such a "small" one that asm.js was able to reach production-ready first despite starting work several years later.

This is why we're clear-cutting forests to build new data centers? Not even for "real" productivity gains, but just for the sake of using the tokens.

The difference is that early-bird pricing is transparent and predictable. There is a written, known policy of $X discount during specific hours. You can plan for it. It's never a surprise.

Dynamic pricing means sometimes you go there, and Wendy's decides on the fly whether you get a lower price and how much. It gives Wendy's the option to pinch pennies how they see fit for their own benefit, rather than offering a deal which you can choose to accept.

> which seems to directly oppose the CCPA.

I have some background in data privacy compliance.

It sounds like they are claiming to be a Service Provider under CCPA, which is similar to a Processor under GDPR. Long story short, a Controller is the one legally responsible for ensuring the rights of the data subject, and a service provider/processor is a "dumb pipe" for a Controller that does what they're told. So IF they are actually a Service Provider, they're correct that the legal responsibility for CCPA belongs to their customers and not them.

That's a big IF, though.

Being a Processor/Service Providor means trade-offs. The data you collect isn't yours, you're not allowed to benefit from it. If Flock aggregates data from one customer and sells that aggregate to a different customer, they're no longer just a service provider. They're using data for their own purposes, and cannot claim to be "just" a service provider.

My personal conspiracy theory is that in some cases, the "loser" is in on the graft to. It's a way to launder bribes.

That still begs the question though: There are existing tools and solutions that do this. Why not, and would this being AI make a difference?

"My boss would be more likely to approve it" is a cynical but valid answer.

That type of experimental set-up is forbidden due to ethical concerns. It goes against medical ethics to give patients treatment that you think might be worse.

The Gaussian integers usually aren't considered interesting enough to have disagreements about. They're in a weird spot because the integer restriction is almost contradictory with considering complex numbers: complex numbers are usually considered as how to express solutions to more types of polynomials, which is the opposite direction of excluding fractions from consideration. They're things that can solve (a restricted subset of) square-roots but not division.

This is really a disagreement about how to construct the complex numbers from more-fundamental objects. And the question is whether those constructions are equivalent. The author argues that two of those constructions are equivalent to each other, but others are not. A big crux of the issue, which is approachable to non-mathematicians, is whether it i and -i are fundamentally different, because arithmetically you can swap i with -i in all your equations and get the same result.

They weren't "just" raw dumps of internal C structures. It takes careful design work to dump raw memory in a usable fashion. Consider: You can't just write a pointer to disk and then read it back next week.

Binary MS Office format is a phenomenal piece of engineering to achieve a goal that's no longer relevant: fast save/load on late-80's hard drives. Other programs took minutes to save a spreadsheet, Excel took seconds. It did this by making sure it's in-memory data structures for a document could be dumped straight to disk without transformation.

But yes, this approach carries a shitton of baggage. And that achievement is no longer relevant in a world where consumer hardware can parse XML documents on the fly.

I have heard it argued, though, that the "baggage" isn't the file format. It's actually the full historical featureset of Excel. Being backwards-compatible means being able to faithfully represent the features of old Excel, and the essential complexity of that far outweighs the incidental complexity of how those features were encoded.

HIPAA is not a privacy law, nor even a healthcare law. It's an insurance law. It does not cover medical records generally. It deals strictly with how doctors bill insurance companies, and mandates security for health information being billed about.

For the same reason, health & wellness apps are not generally covered by HIPAA, and in fact quite a few of those exist solely for the purpose of selling medical data to data brokers. Especially ones related to women's health.

> If it only exists in some hardware, how should the standard deal with that?

Generally seems to me the C standard makes things like that UB. Signed integer overflow, for example. Implemented as wrapping two's-complement on modern architectures, defined as such in many modern languages, but UB in C due to ongoing support for niche architectures.

The issues around pointer provenance are inherent to the C abstract machine. It's a much more immediate show-stopper on architectures that don't have a flat address space, and the C abstract machine doesn't assume a flat address space because it supports architecture where that's not true. My understanding is that reflects some oddball historical architectures that aren't relevant anymore, nowadays that includes CHERI.

It very much is something that exists in hardware. One of the major reasons why people finally discovered the provenance UB lurking in the standard is because of the CHERI architecture.

GDPR does not currently have explicit business size thresholds. Its provisions are all framed as personal rights of the data subject, so its provisions are always in effect. By contrast, CCPA in California is framed as a consumer protection law so it only applies to companies of a certain size.

In practice, small fries are not an enforcement priority. Regulators in most countries are not well-funded so they have to be frugal with their enforcement actions.

The EU is currently reviewing an option to relax GDPR requirements for smaller businesses. Not remove GDPR requirements, just streamline some of the process overhead.

Yes it does.

If a user can say "here's my IP address, what data do you have on me?" and you can answer that question, then that's personal data under GDPR. It's pseudynomized, but not anonymized, and pseudynomous data is personal data.