Does Anthropic not just have right of first refusal? They seem to imply that any sale, purchase, or transfer of stock is actually impossible, which seems hard to believe.
I got a DMCA notice for my fork (https://github.com/cg505/claude-code) which I have not touched since May. Obviously, it didn't include the leaked source code.
The DMCA notice published by GitHub includes this:
> Note: Because the reported network that contained the allegedly infringing content was larger than one hundred (100) repositories, and the submitter alleged that all or most of the forks were infringing to the same extent as the parent repository, GitHub processed the takedown notice against the entire network of 8.1K repositories, inclusive of the parent repository.
2. They might get into trouble charging users to generate some other entity's IP, so they may revenue-share with the IP owner.
They're probably still losing money even if they charge for video generation, but recouping some of that cost, even if they revshare, is better than nothing.
The voice is really good, especially small details like sharp air intake before a response to indicate tone. I guess the conversation topics weren't amazing but that's not really the point.
The problem I have is that if you want to engage with something like this, you need to pretend it's a human. As they say, the uncanny valley was pretty much successfully crossed. And to be honest, I don't want to pretend I'm talking to a human for a whole bunch of reasons.
The technically aspects are really impressive, but I think "pretending to be a human" in this way is a pretty scary goal. The cognitive dissonance was too strong and it was hard for me to continue a conversation very long at all. What does it even mean to have a conversation without theory of mind?
The good-faith interpretation of Musk's actions goes something like: "All of these cuts are consistent with the overall goal and eventually planned. So, Musk is just cutting things as he thinks of them."
Unfortunately, it means that the best way to avoid getting cut, for now, is just to avoid drawing Musk's attention, for any reason. The ISS thing from yesterday [1] is a clear example - something that was already planned and has just been bumped up.
To be clear, I don't really buy this interpretation, especially since over the years Musk has shown himself to be quite vindictive.
It is interesting, though, that a portion of the article is dedicated to discussing how it's important to make the proof simpler and more generally available. Although machine-verifiability is surely a good goal, it can't replace humans being able to comprehend the proofs as well. In this world where proof can all be verified, we may be more confident in our mathematical knowledge, but we'll also be unable to generate new knowledge.
There are a ton of networks (think big corporate networks, schools, shared apartment wifi) that enforce too many weird port restrictions. Many of those places rarely get network or config updates. I don't think it's as bad as IPv6, but there are a lot of people for whom it isn't going to just work out of the box.
Gnome 3 has been out for 9 years now, which is longer than the time between the releases of Gnome 2 and 3. I don't think there is a lot of config churn. (It may have been worse in the early days of Gnome 3.)
> "In my personal opinion, I can deliver the same quality of education online as I could in person."
Although this statement is debatable to begin with, it also misses a huge point. Even if the quality of an online education is the same, many students cannot learn as anywhere near as well in that environment. They paid tens of thousands of dollars for in-person learning, so for that to be replaced with something entirely different in form really sucks.
Developer experience is more than just technical too. I know some package authors (and myself personally) find themselves very disillusioned with the GNU approach to contribution, especially regarding licensing and copyright assignment.