I don't understand why this would be an issue. Firstly, you could just pin your dependencies, but even if you don't, couldn't the default behaviour be to just install the newest scanned version?
Really makes me wonder what the angle here is for them. With open source, I can somewhat understand given market standards become easier to hire for and you get feedback on your tooling. It seems unlikely that either will be true for open-weight models. It also seems unlikely they would be able to establish market domination and then increase prices if everything remains open.
Proponents of free software would agree. In addition, from the programmer's point of view this is usually how things work (unless they own the startup, the equivalent of self-publishing). And for most products that actively gain new users, there is continuous work being put into adding new features and maintenance. So in my mind, this is not a perfect analogy.
I assumed GP was referring to OpenAI, not danswer (given that they mentioned that those companies were training models). And you're still using OpenAI's API, so neither open source and self hosting affect data collection.
What's wrong with "math can't be made illegal"? I think the context for this argument (that I've heard most often) is around e2e encryption, and in that context I agree with it, both from an enforceability and a moral perspective.
Though I never have used Youtube premium, Louis Rossmann talks a lot about this. If I remember correctly it was something about not actually getting a file when downloading, instead having something you're forced to watch in the app and something not working right without internet access/location restrictions.
From the link: 'It was suggested that copyright protection afforded to the computer program may also extend to the output files if the program does the “lion’s share of the work” in creating the output files and the user’s input is “marginal.”'
Even if you consider the user input to be marginal, the issue from the link is the copyright of the program extending to the code, not that of the user.
If humans are vertebrates, then some vertebrates are human. It is wholly possible (and indeed true) that a specific subset of vertebrates (those that existed 200 million years ago) and another subset (humans) are disjoint.
What prevents me from cloning some product's website and changing the payment form to send me the details instead, which I then submit somewhere else to purchase something online for myself? Not sure why Stripe or PCI is even important here.
(IMO) what GP was arguing for is that we should have a fundamentally asymmetrical form of payment, viz. the information I give for one purchase should not be able to be reused for another purchase, like a one-time token. Imagine if you had to send your private key every time you wanted to purchase something in crypto, for example.
I think the reals are also even: If x is rational pair it as you would in the rational case (which we assume is even - I haven't proven this). Otherwise pair it to -x, and thus the reals are even.
Being "even" seems like a much more interesting (and simpler) property of a set. I don't see what use there could be to know that you could pair things off, with one element left over. When you extend the notion you do have to decide what to preserve, but to me parity is much more about divisibility and symmetry than it is about reminader. I agree that it's arbitrary, though less arbitrary than the odd definition.
Not a lawyer, but I think with libel/defamation, you need to show that you lost something of value because of the statement. Odds are this won't be as widely applicable as something like 'hate speech' (eg. how will you show some internet racist's words caused you monetary damages?).
In an (imprecise) way, the closed set is a water balloon and the open set doesn't have the rubber balloon wrapping the water - I would consider the water balloon to be 'closed' in this case.
Indeed, the ability to 'launder away' proprietary licenses when source is available means that companies in the future (that would otherwise provide source under a non-permissive license) will shift in favour of not providing source code at all.
I'm not sure on your argument. I belive it's rational to make a decision that you would repeat every time you are presented with the decision, no matter if you knew beforehand how much times that decision would be presented to you.
Let's account for the marginal value of each dollar to set the number 50 to be some number that equated to triple the utility of the first million.
Why would it make less sense to choose the 50%? Assuming you would definitely take a 99.9999% chance of 50 million over 100% of 1 million, at what percentage do you switch over to the higher percentage?
> Meanwhile in Java world, with strict typing, you have egregious vulnerabilities like log4shell, amongst others (https://java-0day.com/).
The website doesn't seem to be up to date. I haven't looked deeply into log4shell/spring4shell, but my impression is that they were not related to typing (input validation for log4shell, at least).
Maybe this was the point you were trying to make, but these vulnerabilities don't seem too relevant to type system.