> He's not describing how things are, but how he wants you to think about them.
That is what a lie is. The fact that some people think he exists in a different plane of existence from normal humans does not change the meaning of “lie”.
Hold on, doesn’t he think ads aren’t cool, assuming he watched the movie The Social Network years ago?
Sam Altman wants you to believe he doesn’t like ads. Sam Altman wants you to believe ads are a last resort for him. Sam is losing money. Sam reached his last resort option.
I don't think that is, because, at the time, he probably haven't decided one way or another. I think about it like the Schrodinger's cat. If Schrodinger's said "I think the cat is dead" and you went ahead and opened the box and found the cat alive, would Schrodinger have lied?
Apple originally announced they would bring Mac Pro production to the US in 2013.
The two articles you share are one from CNN saying apple was moving production back to China after 6 years in the US and second from apple a few months later saying they were keeping it in the US.
You put the article from September before the article from June to create a narrative that only a few months passed between Apple's announcement of US production and CNN debunking it. The only issue is that the CNN article was 3 months _before_ Apple's rebuttal.
However, this issue is complicated by the fact that Trump toured the factory in 2019 and claimed it was new, something the press picked up an and therefore the media stories of the time are pretty warped.
In reality, Apple had many issues ramping up production in the US for various reason, one example being supply chain.
If they started in 2012 and it all went rosy, why did they have another press release in 2019 announcing it again, and why are they making a big song and dance about it again 14 years later? If everything with manufacturing in the US was going fine, I would have expected them to start making a lot more products in the US over those 14 years. Instaead we have a couple of troubled product lines, and some big shiny press releases trying to show off its importance.
> Browsers are designed to be the end user's self-service toolkit to combat our bad websites. Users can override fonts, mute sounds, enlarge text, pinch-zoom in, open images in a separate tab, copy-and-paste, autofill rote form inputs, switch to "simplified reading mode", search for the same information elsewhere, reload the page to reset Javascript bugs, and even try a different browser to see if they happen to have the one on their computer that we bothered to test.
To be fair, part of this is that a "good website" for a web developer is often a "bad website" for a user. Giving users the ability to work around bad websites is good for users and if this makes "good experiences" hard to write, I think its a small price to pay. So much of web development is finding ways to combat the users (to track them, show them ads, prevent them from using the site how they want). I think web browsers should keep providing features for users to fight back rather than simply being tools of web developers.
I don't think you are correct here. From the FAQ [0] on the website linked by the post:
“Derivative works” exception – although a successful termination causes all of the rights to revert, this will not affect exploitation of derivative works created during the lifetime of the agreement, even after that agreement has been terminated. Once the agreement has been terminated, the grantee (see the glossary) may continue after termination to utilize “derivative works prepared under authority of the grant before its termination…[consistent with] the term of the grant” (to quote from the U.S. Copyright Act). This means that if, for example, an author granted a company a 50-year exclusive license to create a movie based on the author’s novel, that company can continue to use and exploit the movie even after the author successfully terminates the exclusive license. The company may not prepare a new movie based on the novel; it may only continue to use the existing movie that it created when the exclusive license was still current.
Thank you, I was wrong. This does seem more reasonable. But it would be nice if minor changes were still allowed. For example patching security issues of a video game should be allowed.
I wish this were further up in the comments. Most people seem to be assuming that you get all the marbles back.
Imagine the chaos if someone were able to say ‘whoops, all those books you bought are no longer sellable!’.
Imagine if Alan Cox took back all the bits of Linux he wrote and decided they were no longer to be licensed under the GPL!
…although maybe it’s only a matter of time before that second thing happens somewhere? “The company may not prepare a new movie based on the novel; it may only continue to use the existing movie that it created when the exclusive license was still current” seems problematic for open source software (or commercial software! What if the original authors of the FAT file system decided to try to start getting royalties from new derivative works?…)
Under the U.S. Copyright Act, copyrighted works that qualify as “works made for hire” are subject to special rules that govern who becomes the first owner of copyright in a work. For regular works, the person who creates the work becomes the first owner of copyright. However, for “works made for hire” either the employer or person who commissioned the work becomes the first owner of copyright. Neither of these transfers of rights from the author to the employer or commissioning party, which occur by operation of the Copyright Act, nor any subsequent agreements entered into by the employer or commissioning party in relation to the work, may be challenged by the author or their family members.
There’s a whole lot more nuance there, but notably “A contribution to a collective work” is allowed to be a work for hire.
This is quanta magazine. It is for lay people. The reason people are "nitpicking" the title is that "shape" is not a technical term. The technical term for what was found is "convex polyhedron". I read so much of the article before I was sure that it was talking about convex polyhedra specifically because the title is so ambiguous.
reply