HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

indigovole

no profile record

comments

indigovole
·vor 21 Tagen·discuss
Even with his context-tracking mechanism, the gameplay failures sound like running out of context in the late game, especially the frequent failures of the "check for opponent win conditions every 20 moves." Wondering how much info about the game win state gets captured in the game digests, and how much he could improve the gameplay even with the MCP limitations by focusing there.
indigovole
·vor 10 Monaten·discuss
What kind of embedded WASM malware are we going to be defending against with this?
indigovole
·vor 12 Monaten·discuss
If he were not in favor of cutting rates, he would not now be a contender.
indigovole
·letztes Jahr·discuss
Any way to turn off the special effects?
indigovole
·letztes Jahr·discuss
With yet another exciting new release of something reaching the top of HN, I would just like to urge devs to put a description of the project they're actually releasing and a link to the page describing the project in the release announcement.

These announcements could be a valuable touchpoint for you to reach a whole new audience, but I can't remember a single one that starts with something like "exciting new release of NAME, the X that does Y for users of Z. Check out the project home page at https:// for more."

Quite often, the release announcement is a dead end that can't even take me to the project! In this case, the only link is a tiny octocat in the lower left-hand corner, AFAICS.
indigovole
·letztes Jahr·discuss
Scoring is wrong. Using all 7 gets a 50 point bonus. Hit this on the very first rack.
indigovole
·letztes Jahr·discuss
must have something to do with paragraph breaks
indigovole
·letztes Jahr·discuss
It's a really interesting question.

I'm sure you could go back 40 years earlier and find programmers complaining about using FORTRAN and COBOL compilers instead writing the assembly by hand.

I think that the assembler->compiler transition is a better metaphor for the brain->brain+AI transition than Visual Studio's old-hat autocomplete etc.

After working with Cursor for a couple of hours, I had a bunch of code that was working according to my tests, but when I integrated it, I found that Claude had inferred a completely different protocol for interacting with data structure than the rest of my code was using. Yeah, write better tests... but I then found that I did not really understand most of the code Claude had written, even though I'd approved every change on a granular level. Worked manually through an solid hour of wtf before I figured out the root cause, then Clauded my way through the fix.

I can picture an assembly developer having a similar experience trying to figure out why the compiler generated _this_ instead of _that_ in the decade where every byte of memory mattered.

Having lived through the dumb editor->IDE transition, though, I _never_ had anything like that experience of not understanding what I'd done in hours 1 and 2 at the very beginning of hour 3.
indigovole
·letztes Jahr·discuss
This amounts to a claim of fair use, since copying occurs. Pretty disingenuous of them to make a claim that an individual user would make.

The outcome of a fair use claim by one of the world's largest corporations to ingest wholesale an entire corpus and use it for commercial purposes is probably not the same as one by an individual person who wanted to watch a movie.

It's not the same use, and is much more likely to be found unfair.
indigovole
·vor 2 Jahren·discuss
Shotspotter for tire screeches? Because Shotspotter works so well for shots: https://www.macarthurjustice.org/blog2/shotspotter-is-a-fail...
indigovole
·vor 2 Jahren·discuss
And yet, that is literally all they are asking to do.
indigovole
·vor 2 Jahren·discuss
Old enough article that we can be sure that its recommendations were not implemented.

It looks excellent, except for the terrible choice of red and green to distinguish parking/no-parking times. AWAK, the different zones would be nearly indistinguishable to around 5% of humans, almost but not entirely men.
indigovole
·vor 2 Jahren·discuss
let alone the satisfaction of plunking in 10 of them, one after another, muscling them up from my Weimar®-brand currency wheelbarrow.
indigovole
·vor 2 Jahren·discuss
You can't just dismiss a vuln as, "for the love of god, don't expose XXX to the internet."

It's not great to have an unauthenticated RCE on a machine that is _not_ accessible from the internet, either. Inside-the-network RCE is useful for lateral movement and privilege escalation. RCE that you can find by looking for an open UDP port - instead of a vuln scan on 80/443 - is even better.

Initial entry is an important vuln abuse case, but not the _only_ abuse case.
indigovole
·vor 2 Jahren·discuss
Link doesn't seem to match this headline (?).
indigovole
·vor 2 Jahren·discuss
I'm not sure what you meant by the quote talking about the right to display the copy - again, a material object - publicly. A used book store or record store is allowed to show the book or record for sale. It's not allowed to, say, play the record for a party - that's the performance right - or make a movie out of the book. It's allowed to display the physical object.
indigovole
·vor 2 Jahren·discuss
There's the questions of whether first sale _should_ apply to digital works in the same way it does to physical works, and whether it _does_ apply to physical works under current law.

I'm teetering at the top of a very tall fence on the _should_ question.

Publishers have always been opposed to digital first sale for a very simple reason: fear that their prices will go to zero. Used physical books prices are pennies on the dollar for new book prices, on the basis of the condition/deterioration issue. The quality/condition issue doesn't exist for digital works. If Amazon could offer "used" digital copies of publisher e-books, the customer would be choosing between identical binaries at 10-1 price ratios _at best_. I really don't see any other way that this goes. Sure, capitalism isn't for the weak, yadda yadda, new models, but how's it going to work. Amazon's Kindle Unlimited is an alternate model, but Amazon already has enormous control over publisher fortunes. "Should the current publishers exist" is a really interesting question. I'm just not sure I want to find out by handing all compensated book publishing to Amazon.

So why am I on the fence? Well, I have paid for 2000+ ebooks. I wouldn't mind being able to transfer them to my children without limitation, or to friends. If there were a resale mechanism no more disruptive than used paper books, I would probably have sold some of them already. It's not that I don't appreciate the value or convenience of resale, but that I consider the side effects.

The second question is, "Does current law support digital first sale?" First off, I am not a lawyer, and I'm not giving legal advice. However, the words of the law are pretty damn clear, to be honest, that it does not. You found section 109, which is correct, but you're relying on the colloquial meaning of the word "copy." You need to look up the words "copy" and "phonorecord" in the definitions, section 101, so that you can see that in this law both words refer to _material objects_ in which a work is fixed.

A paper book is a material object. You can sell the book. The buyer owns the physical book - the stack of paper and binding - and can read it.

A CD or DVD is a material object. You can sell the flashy mirror thing. The buyer owns the flashy mirror thing and can listen to the album or play the movie.

An ebook is just not a material object. In most cases, they are not with a single physical object, but licensed as downloads according to fairly restrictive terms. If you have a physical object with a duly licensed ebook on it, you're probably allowed to sell that physical object (unless it's a Cybertruck, I guess.) However, the license on that download is still going to be what controls. Your Kindle has Kindle software tied to your Amazon account that allows you to read the books you've bought, and I'm really pretty certain you can't sell your Amazon account and all your individual access rights.

Various entrepreneurs have tried to convince courts that some variant of "one-copy-at-a-time" digital first sale tech fits under 109, and courts look for the material object and note that it is not there.

So, anyway, the law is not written so that ingenious digital technology that ensures that a digital copy is only possessed by one person at time can fall under first sale. It's written so that physical objects that contain or embody copyright-protected works can be sold.
indigovole
·vor 2 Jahren·discuss
The physical object can be passed around without copyright coming into play. Copyright law has special provision for interlibrary loan, and archival copies.

There is nothing in the law that supports making a digital copy and and using technical safeguards to transfer it to exactly one person at a time - except licensing under the exclusive rights of the rightsholder.

Congress could write something into the law to support this kind of digital lending. However, Congress has been largely unable to accomplish anything interesting or innovative for a long time now, outside of a couple of flagship goals for one party or the other. Copyright law hasn't seen a substantial revision since the Act of '75, and ... a few ... things have happened since then. [DMCA added some new provisions for anti-circumvention and for safe harbor, but it didn't add new exemptions that most people care about, or modify the exclusive rights in any way.]

The entertainment/publishing industries have usually gotten what they want in past revisions, but by now the tech industry is pretty strongly on the opposite side. It would be interesting to see what kind of crazy-quilt changes got patched together in a significant revision.
indigovole
·vor 2 Jahren·discuss
It is ultimately judgment calls by human beings that make the determinations. However, I don't see how you can read this opinion and think that the judges are just making their minds up on the spot. Every single decision point in this opinion goes back to prior cases and either explains why they apply or distinguishes this case from them to explain why they don't.

- It's not like Campbell/Rose-Acuff (2 Live Crew v Roy Orbison, the "Pretty Woman" case) because IA's ebooks are not parodies of the original works. They _are_ the original works.

- It's not like Sony (the Betamax case in which whole-work copying was found fair because it enabled time-shifting), because there's no sufficiently different use that's not supported by the original copy. You read the book, you read the IA scanned copy.

Courts have judgment, but within parameters. The Copyright Act itself spells out four factors for evaluating whether a use is fair, and both courts found that it failed on every factor. The judge can't say, "well, but I still believe that the use should be fair anyway"; that would be an instant reversal and remand, with instructions amounting to "follow what the law says, dummy."

This was never really a close call based on prior cases. Transformative use has almost never been "exactly the same work used exactly the same way, but digital." Cases that have tried to make that argument have failed again and again. The "our enforcement ensures that only one person is using the copy at a time" has been tried before as well, and has consistently failed. Back in 2020, my heart sank when I saw IA's announcement that they were doing this, because I was certain that they would be sued for it, and that they would lose if they were. I can't stress enough how obvious these rulings have been if you expect the courts to do what they ordinarily do-- find similarly in similar cases.

The Supreme Court can discard all that precedent - they've certainly made a habit of that lately - and create new case law, along with an explanation of the way that they evaluate the factors to find that way. They may in fact do so; they've done that a couple of times in recent decades. However, they don't take many cases, and this case is so clearly in line with past cases that it's hard to see why they would take this one.
indigovole
·vor 2 Jahren·discuss
[flagged]