I am not a lawyer, and I am definitely not their lawyer, but if I had to defend their position, there can be made an argument that logo (that mostly just says "ONLYOFFICE" with a small image) is just the author attribution - and the AGPL does not explicitly specify whether the authorship attribution requirement might require a specific format for the attribution. But earlier in this thread Excelcia cited OnlyOffice as using the required legal notices as justification, and to me that's an obviously unjustified overreach.

But I think the broader point while admittedly weakened still stands - there is definitely at least some nuance here, even if once all nuances are considered, the conclusion is still the same - and it is disingenuous to imply that the CEO would have known he is obviously wrong if he just read enough of the license to realize it disallows all additional restrictions, period. Seems misleading to do that without first engaging with and acknowledging the nuance.

Interesting, did not see that. So that are claiming the logo is a legal notice, not an attribution? That seems to me like a much more obvious overreach than when I thought they were [ab]using the permission to require attribution.

To respond to the actual point - requiring an authorship notice is clearly allowed. Requiring that it be in a specific graphical form - seems to me like way too far. But I also did not like how FSF dismissed it as completely disallowed, without any acknowledgement that a less onerous/ less specific authorship acknowledgement would have been clearly OK - dudes, you are the ones that included a list of allowed restrictions, do not now act as if it's absolutely preposterous to consider that any restrictions might be OK!

Oops, I think this was a typo or autocorrect error - but I was citing the correct OnlyOffice license.

AGPL:

(emphasis mine)

OpenOffice license includes:

So there is an actual subtle question here - does "original Product logo" count as "reasonable legal notices or author attributions" within the meaning of AGPL 7(b)? But hey, who wants to read when the accused others of no reading?!

If you click the link twice, you will see that the original source for it is a Washington Post story from January 16, 2022...

FP variables are const by default, and have to be explicitly made mutable.

Your code is actually a perfect example. In C:

const float X = Get_Current_Spped();
Display(X);

In an ML-style FP language:

let X Get_Current_Spped() in
Display(X)

In both cases, you are not changing X - you are creating a new X every time, keeping the previous X unchanged.

Look, I found and skimmed the Nature article before writing my original post. But I am not a QC expert, and so have no clue what a surface code is, why they are important, and what exactly was unsolved about them for 20 years. I can have a guess based on skimming the article, but it is completely lazy that the ABC West Sydney did not bother to include any explanation in their article, not even mentioning "surface code", and instead just filling the whole article with fluff. And given that the original article is just fluff and is missing the background info, the original Slashdot poster should have included some of that background info in their summary, not just linked to fluff.

It's amazing how both the Slashdot summary and the news article are pure fluff - no explanation of /which/ problem was solved! Could somebody please explain what the actual innovation is?

Slashdot cut the title without working - has been years since I last posted. Anyway, what I was trying to say was "It is fun to see how things still look pretty much like they did 10 years ago"...

See https://linuxfinances.info/inf... . Even describes Wayland as a suggested alternative that does not actually have a good reason for why it would be better...

Eliezer Yudkowsky's "Rationality: From AI to Zombies" is a must-read on this subject. He lays out very clearly and compellingly just why self-improving AIs are so dangerous, and what extremely narrow path the humanity needs to walk to avoid this danger.

California is a "fault" state - see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Because they are constantly on the road, for testing and data collection. I would imagine that they drove more in these 6 months than many cars do in 6 years.

Ah, no, the meaningful rate is accidents per miles driven, not per car. These cars are driven constantly (for testing, data collection, etc), surely way more that twice the average.