chicken

Maybe they're using other fingerprinting techniques to tell. I get that too but I switch to another computer and I get the full article.

But how did he get it up on the display stand he can't reach to begin with

Goldberg was also active on Twitter, Reddit, Disqus and others under the username MoonMetropolis,[7] a "free speech absolutist" who was involved with the Gamergate controversy. He would frequently use this persona to criticize the works of his other personas such as anti-free speech activist Tanya Cohen, arguing against points that he himself had made.[38]

Sums up a lot of modern political discourse pretty well imo. This kind of person, making disingenuous arguments against themselves, maybe for some reasons but mostly because they are insane.

Easy to imagine a revolution as a sort of neatly abstracted game that can be won where the score is measured in control, difficult to imagine a better world being produced by a commitment to myriad future feats of imagination yet to exist in concrete form.

Countries like Canada cutting us off from their data is also good for those of us in the US under threat from our own government and corporations.

Well idc about the semantics, the fact is it is useful and there is a good reason to use it. Personally I think the "they can't see or reply to you anymore" style of "block" is super toxic and Reddit switching to that model was a major factor in its decline. It is very easily weaponized and basically amounts to giving powerusers moderation powers. If someone who makes a lot of popular posts or top level comments blocks you under that model, that instantly limits your ability to participate, and no one ever gets to know this is happening or to what extent. The most obvious way this gets abused is by commercial spammers trying to monopolize relevant subs by blocking everyone who may call them out or post competing content, but it also shuts down disagreement and debate; if you have something controversial to say and don't want it to look like any good objections exist, you can just silence your best critics.

So those replies won't show up in my inbox of course

Damn I gotta play that game sometime

I mean… so your that sibling/roomate/kids/family doesnt mess around and replace your OS with a malicious OS)

Unfortunately the goal of simplifying your security setup is very much at odds with the really difficult goal of defending attacks from people with physical access to your hardware. Personally I live alone, don't even have a lockscreen on my phone, and set my computer to skip login on boot.

They also have a RSS feed, that's how I follow them

If that is the case, is chardet 7.0.0 a derivative work of chardet, or is it a public domain LLM work? The whole LLM project is fraught with questions like these

I think the reimplementation stuff is a separate question because the argument for it working looks a lot stronger, and because it doesn't have anything to do with the source material having LLM output in it. Also if this method holds as legally valid, it's going to be easier to just do that than justify copying code directly (which would probably have to only be copies of the explicitly generated parts of the code, requiring figuring out how to replace the rest), which means it won't matter whether some portion of it was generated. I don't see much reason to think that a purist approach to accepting LLM code will offer any meaningful protection.

I’m mostly just playing along with your thought experiment. As I said, we know that projects are already accepting LLM code into projects that are nominally copyleft.

So what though? If they aren't entirely generated, you can't make a full fork, and why would a partial fork be useful? If it isn't disclosed what parts are AI, you can't even do that without risking breaking the law.

but if they instead say that they copied the work into their LLM and produced a copy without protections (as chardet has done), the courts might be less willing to afford the project copyright protections if the project itself was making use of the same copyright stripping technology to strip others’ work to claim protections over copied work.

ianal but does it even work like that? Is there any specific reason to think it does? I don't believe you really get credit for purity and fairness vibes in the legal system. Same goes for the idea that code where it is ambiguous whether it is AI output could be considered public domain, seems kind of implausible, is there actually any reason to think the law works that way? If it did, then any copyrighted work not accompanied by proof of human authorship would be at risk, uncharacteristic for a system focused on giving big copyright holders what they want without trouble.

the only code that may ultimately be protected is closed source code - you can’t copy it if you don’t have the source.

There is no way, leaks happen, big tech companies have massive influence, a situation where their code falls into the public domain as soon as the public gets their hands on it just isn't realistic. I feel suspicious that many of these concerns are coming from a place of not wanting LLM code in open source projects for other reasons, rather than the existence of a strong legal case that it represents a real and serious threat to copyleft licensing.