If your link is set up to make the image display immediately (that is, you wrap it in image tags, or as in one case, embed Instagram posts) then you may be violating copyright. What's more, in Europe, just a hyperlink to a copyrighted work violates copyright.
Conclusion: copyright is not about copying, it's about access.
Sure, but that seems different from what I was addressing. The person I was responding to was saying that the law as a whole usually doesn’t make sense. They were saying that in the context of arguing that if the law didn’t consider viewing a page of copyrighted copying as involving copying due to the technical basis of it having to transfer bits to your computer then the law didn’t make sense. My point was that laws don’t have to encompass or fully specify all edge cases, and that the ways laws are written can be open to interpretation. I think I removed a sentence before posting about the purpose of finders of facts in the US system like juries or judges in bench trials.
They deny what: that they're very impressed, that they think it's cool, that their minds are blown, that they really really like it? Denying these things is allowed, you know.
Edit: if you're going to try to stage an intellectual wrestling match on the topic of is this thing awesome or not, you might as well make it a proper wrestling match and maybe get greased-up Turkish style. It would be more entertaining and you'd be more likely to arrive at a meaningful conclusion.
Stone age when? 40,000 years ago or 4,000 years ago? Göbekli Tepe is from a mere 11,000 years ago. I mean cranes for ziggurats, sure. Cranes for megaliths I dunno about. Maybe you just got a lot of beefy men to push the giant rock into an upright position, maybe brute force was the point. Giving them simple machines is a slippery slope (which is itself a more plausible paleolithic/neolithic technology) to a kind of paleo-punk where you retrofit them with Flintstones cars and apartment buildings and production line belts, all made from hide and rope and mammoth grease.
Well before those (pun intended) there were many variations on counter weighted water lifters - from source (well, or lower channel) to buckets or to irrigation channels.
So you raise the water, lowering the counterweight, and the balance makes it easy. Then you need to get the counterweight up again, so you ... haul it up with great effort? Or lower the water back down the well?
I think I've seen pictures of this type of thing for use with irrigation channels: like a giant spoon that pivots on a post, with a weight opposite the bowl. Still unclear how the return motion with no water isn't just as hard as lifting water with no counterbalance.
Doesn't seem to explain though. "The bucket can be lowered by the operator using their own weight to push it down; the counterweight then raises the full bucket without effort." So then, raise the water using your own weight, don't bother with the counterweight? Oh, I suppose the point is to have a bucket of water conveniently stationary at shoulder height, but held only tenuously in place when it's empty in the depths of a well, rather than the other way round. Right.
yeah you know, that concept we've never been able to define using language, making heavy use of the human experience which can also not be captured in language (proof: how bad LLMs are at poetry)
the question is, when comparing a human and a large language model, whether the intellect (that cannot be captured in language) is different from anything the language model can actually do (e.g. language)
the answer to this seems quite obvious to me, and I would actually posit that the onus is on the other side, to prove they are even remotely similar
maybe people think that the voice in their heads is what is doing the thinking? is that the confusion here?
Do you think the LLM is the Chain of Thought? Did you also get confused by the name? Because, much like humans, the CoT is a tool to narrativize and maintain internal coherence. The actual thinking happens invisibly, in the forward pass. Just like...
The article is talking about symbols that were lost. The sentence should be interpreted as "these [symbols], for Insert (now gone) and Delete (still with us)". The photo is of a symbol for 'insert', an 'a' with a caret above it.
It probably makes sense with a silent linear keyswitch for users who are used to the obvious acoustic feedback of a typewriter.
Since cheap modern MCUs have programmable ADCs, you can wiggle an output pin and experiment with different sounds. I've tried something a bit more "tinkle" like than a flat "beep" and it has its charms, but it could go a whole new place like different tones for special keys (simulating the clunk of a shift or space bar) or even keys that you could subtly differentiate by sound to tell if you're off alignment.
Holy conspiracy theorists. I surely was not expecting this amount of paranoia from a sound place like HN. Either way, drama is always welcome, for it is ultimately unavoidable, in one form or another.
I just don't like moral distortions. Is YC in control of Flock or responsible for their choices? Who are "them", what are we ignorant about and why is it Marxism?
But what are you saying? YC are to blame for the unsavory future directions of the companies they fund. Counterargument, no they're not, what are you banging on about.
Is this really true? Or are we counting like the games kids made in a computer lab somewhere.
Or there's this 87% number, but it's based on "no longer a legal way to buy it," not that it's not archived/preserved: https://gamehistory.org/87percent/
> Or are we counting like the games kids made in a computer lab somewhere.
We don't have to count amateur projects but the commercial releases in the US is not the entirety of the gaming history. There are other countries with their own rich gaming histories and other platforms (e.g. browser, mobile) that don't get the same attention as American releases for PC or popular consoles.
I cannot play a single game from my childhood, they were early flash games "for girls" and they were not in English. Nobody archived those.
If your link is set up to make the image display immediately (that is, you wrap it in image tags, or as in one case, embed Instagram posts) then you may be violating copyright. What's more, in Europe, just a hyperlink to a copyrighted work violates copyright.
Conclusion: copyright is not about copying, it's about access.
reply