Not just identical twins. If you haven't found pictures of your doppelgangers online, it's only because they're not famous enough and haven't committed any crimes. With 8 billion people on the planet, statistics demand that a lot of them look enough alike that a casual observer wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Except this wouldn't actually solve this. You'd be able to share the business logic, which would be a benefit. But you wouldn't be able to share any of the UI, system, or OS interaction code which is where all the incompatibilities come. If you just wanted to share business logic, there were already ways you could do that (write it in C would be one way).

Also, if they really wanted to do that, they should consider going the opposite way and bringing Kotlin to Swift. Kotlin also has a significant server side use that's growing (mainly by replacing Java), Swift is iOS and Mac only. They'll find a lot more people willing to learn Kotlin than Swift. Of course Apple won't consider that due to NIH and control issues.

Oh. You don't know how a search engine works. No wonder you don't know how copyright and computer software interacts.

You know what a search engine is, right? It takes all the words in a document and stores them in a database along with a link saying that this word was found in that document. The search engine has stored every word in the document, but it has done it in a way that it's not possible for the search engine to reproduce the document. The legal precedent is crystal clear that this activity does not violate the document's copyright.

Now you have a baseline for storing every word of a copyrighted book without violating its copyright.

When the LLM "trains" on a copyrighted book, how does it store the data? Has it saved the original data, in order, where it can spit it back out on command? Or like the search engine, has it stored relationships learned from the data which allow it to reason about the work but not reproduce it verbatim?

That's the correct question to ask when determining whether an LLM violates the copyrights of its training data. The plaintiffs failed to offer a credible answer to that question.

TOSLink's attenuation budget is something like 4dB. That's why even with glass at the proper diameter you can't get a TOSLink cable much longer than about 10 meters.

When the judge said the plaintiffs failed to litigate effectively, what he meant was this:

The defendant said that the LLM is not capable of reproducing the training materials. Instead, the information derived from them is able to summarize relationships, identify contained information, maybe even mimic the style of the book with new writings. In other words, it can do the things a normal human being can do after reading a book.

To prevail, the plaintiffs would have had to offer evidence that it was likely that the LLM stored sufficient data about the books to reproduce them exactly. If it can exactly reproduce the original works then it's not transformative, it's derivative.

The plaintiffs failed to offer any such evidence.

It's not just the high attenuation, you also suffer a high bit error rate as the optical signal interferes with itself. And that's when you move from 65 microns down to 9 microns. TOSLINK would be 1000 microns down to 9, two orders of magnitude more change in diameter and the square of that in area.

I expect not. TOSLink has a 1mm fiber core, not 9um. 100 times the diameter.

9um is for single-mode fiber which requires real lasers and has a transmission distance measured in kilometers.

Your local used computer store has color laser printers for under $200 with lots of life left on them.

Definitely do not get another inkjet. Inkjets are a total scam.

No one is stopping you from offering "proof" that the doctors prescribing what are mostly unpatented _generic_ medications are acting out of allegiance to some specific person or company in the pharmaceutical industry rather than endeavoring to solve the problem their patient presents them with. Go right ahead. Knock yourself out.

Filthy slander is not an "invitation to debate."

I think that adding, "many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids," crossed far enough over the line to get him banned.

Legally they can't fire you either, they can only lay you off. They'd have to have just cause to fire you and refusing to relocate doesn't even pass the sniff test. Laid off makes you eligible for unemployment benefits and it gives you cause to demand delivery of any unvested stock grants. Which for Amazon employees is a lot of money.

Correct. There is no U.S. law which compels the installation of a back door under a gag order. Gag orders are a thing, but they apply to _providing_ information to law enforcement, not collecting it in the first place.

There is something called lawful intercept which requires telecom infrastructure companies to install wiretapping points in their networks. These are openly installed, not under gag order. But it is possible for law enforcement to activate them with a warrant that's under a gag order. And again, these are in telecom infrastructure, not user applications.

The FBI did attempt to compel Apple to implement back doors in iPhones about a decade ago. The attempt ultimately FAILED in court.

Smallpox and polio only infect human beings. They may have seemed ubiquitous but compared to the mosquito they had a relatively small impact on the ecosystem.