But why in God's name did the foundation need 2,500 of them just to spend Billykins money ?
I think the emerging Minnesota and California scandals are demonstrating why charity funding must be closely monitored, charitable orgs investigated. Private orgs can be targeted just like government agencies.
It must be something to have a job description of "Spend Bill Gates' money"
One man can only spend money on hookers and cocaine so fast, interest and dividends on "the money" probably exceeds hooker and cocaine expenses.
Weird to argue that ethical considerations shouldn't consider intent.
It's more that ethical considerations are not necessarily relevant to legality.
And then there is the irony.
Apple doesn't have devices with enough RAM to challenge Nvidia.
Again, I am referring to the local ML model execution, acceleration. Apple Watches have done impressive on-board processing using ML models.
also has no credibility in servers,
Not what I referred to.
No one can claim ownership of your knowledge and experience. You cannot, though, duplicate other people's work.
If AI duplicates code it was trained on, it may be a violation of copyright of the work used in training, not a violation of copyright of a product it is trying to duplicate.
The point I am trying to get at is that the concept of "duplicating code" is fuzzy. General knowledge, straightforward and obvious implementations, etc can make work non-infringing even if the code looks similar. An AI that is using some sort of logic to build a solution is quite different than an AI that is searching the internet from similar examples. Similar code being more legally acceptable for the former. Just like a human who studied a textbook or academic literature use open source code as examples to teach higher level concepts of operating system, network, image processing
A human who has seen the source code cannot be part of the team producing a clean room implementation. They will taint the project with their general knowledge of the system they try to rebuild.
Apologies if I was not clear. I am NOT talking about the clean room based clones. I am talking about every day software development. That too is sometimes based on having studied copyrighted code. Mere similarity is insufficient to claim infringement. It has to go beyond well known and discussed general knowledge. I expect that concept will be successfully applied to AI too.
I know what you said it about, so that’s why I called you out for changing the subject to China. It was a dick move.
China is the subject of this article.
Stick to talking about Europe
Europe banned Russian: 1. Oil 2. Gas 3. Coal
Banned but still importing it during the Ukrainian war, thereby funding Putin's war.
From google:
"Despite the ongoing war in Ukraine and the imposition of several sanction packages, European Union (EU) member states have continued to purchase Russian oil and gas, with Russia earning approximately €209 billion from fuel exports to the EU since the invasion in February 2022 through early 2025."
if this is a dog-and-pony show, and if there's nothing rigging the numbers. Because these are *really* good numbers.
I'm curious if these batteries are safe enough to leave in an attached garage or should the car be kept in a detached car port for safety.
There's a reason domestic auto makers are terrified of China.
Yeah, China is trying to lock up rare earth and require them to buy batteries from China. That is the real fear. Without their own ability to manufacture batteries at scale they can't hope to compete.
ah, not available, except to rent a time slice? fuck off, then.
In the context of building ML models, renting a virtual farm, may be the better solution. You think think the GPU upgrade cycle is bad, wait until you try to keep up with AI level products.
Accelerating the ML model on your PC or Mac is a very different thing.
Compare the code, if it's similar then Claude is relying on stuff it's been trained on. If not, it's generating novel code that does the same thing.
Insufficient. There have been cases where an infringing company had to rewrite their code and have it examined and signed off on by the original copyright holders attorneys. The lawyers basically did what you describe, "this looks similar."
When the developer could convince the judge that the code in question was basically a straight forward implementation, basically what would be "expected", the attorney was overruled and the code allowed. Similarity is insufficient if the code is simple and straightforward enough.
A coworker once worked on such a project, brought in to cleanup infringing code. He says it was annoying to work under such supervision, but he was being paid by the hour and it was coming out of the a-hole infringer's pocket so he was well compensated for having to deal with the lawyers.
Some will argue that what we do is exploitative, that we are extracting the ideas from open source while leaving behind the people who contributed them.
How is that different from those who create a FOSS project to create a FOSS alternative to a commercial product? The process is simply less formal for these FOSS devs. Neither sides looks at original source code, both sides rely on observed behavior and reimplements that in a new way. FOSS having "noble" intentions and MalusCorp having "less-than-noble" intentions does not change this fact.
Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance? -- Charlie McCarthy
