coming from a company that trains their ai on other people's code without copyright considerations.

Frankly, the government would be doing them and us a favor by making that level of wealth much harder to obtain by good wealth redistribution.

Flawed personality would still be flawed personality.

...with song titles like Splat!, BUG_ON is Evil, and Perkeleen Vittupää.

It is strange how the Linux versioning scheme means that the last minor version is not necessarily LTS. It should be. Instead you have 5.15 being LTS even though the latest 5.x version was 5.19. And Linus justifies this with an arbitrary "I'm running out of fingers and toes" BS.

One feature that they bothered to patent seems to be bandwidth control.

So, does anyone know how this stuff works? If you ask for a bit of code that does x, is there a risk that the answer contains someone's copyrighted stuff (and without attribution, obviously)?

Github's Copilot had that problem, it's been discussed on here before.

You don't have this in Finland? They do in the UK: https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/

One has to be careful with wording. Dextrorotatory ("right-handed") forms of various amino acids do occur in various roles in living organisms, just not commonly in protein synthesis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Raymond Chen of Microsoft has often equated an API to a contract. An API has an implementor and a user, just as there are several parties to a contract. Each party expects the other to do certain things (use the API in a certain way) and in return promises other things (to do what the API is specified to do). If one party does not act in accordance with the contract, chaos ensues.

Locksmiths were having this discussion at least as early as the mid-19th century.

"A commercial, and in some respects a social, doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery. Rogues knew a good deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they have lately done. If a lock -- let it have been made in whatever country, or by whatever maker -- is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is in the interest of *honest* persons to know this fact, because the *dishonest* are tolerably certain to be the first to apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance. It cannot be too earnestly urged, that an acquaintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for all parties." -- Charles Tomlinson's Rudimentary Treatise on the Construction of Locks, published around 1850

Amazing how little has changed... you'd think with improved communication and mobility (of goods and people), attitutes would have shifted in favor of disclosure.

In Denmark it is even worse, the Unitary Patent was subject to popular vote, and approved - after lots of lobbying from those who stood to benefit, of course.

A 'softie has posted a reasonable-looking problem analysis here (look for the screenshot) and corroborated later in the thread. So, it's a problem with shortcuts to OpenType font files... which impacts e.g. Photoshop users. Nice.

IEEE compliance doesn't mean what you think it means. Not sure whether Java has changed in this regard since 1998, but it definitely was wrong then

This doesn't repro on Vista, so it's been fixed for over 3 years. They didn't allow free upgrades to Vista, true (and according to lots of slashdotters, they wouldn't have taken it if offerred).

They didn't "fix" it by fixing the bug, they fixed it by removing the component (according to other posts, at least; I don't use Windows). So the question is: Does removing a component for entirely unrelated reasons amount to a will to "fix" the bug? In my view, no - it only demonstrates that they were willing to remove the component for unrelated reasons.

Heroin is diacetylmorphine, not dimethylmorphine. You're probably mixing it up with codeine, which is (mono-)methylmorphine.