If I run blame on the new file the will I see the commits made by the original writers? Will it find the same code if it was written independently? It’s not about find copies it about recording changes to a code base as an artifact and not to files. The closest git has is limited rename support.
1) An “easy” way to implement this would be to treat the original file as the parent to both files. You can add a new command “split” if needed to mark the new file as a fork of the existing file.
2) language sensitive version control seems like the next thing. We need like an LSP for VCSes.
What I want from a version system is to capture event in history not like changes as a files but as events that capture a process.
If I split a file in two I still want to be able to see blame correctly for the author of the function, not one file as freshly created and the other with a bunch of deletes. I wish commits could be folded into larger commits so that you can still capture the individual changes but also not see them by default when looking at the history of a file.
Just a more human centric perspective on change history where it captures the way we talk and think about changes.
> If I as a human want to make a clean room reimplementation of some API or application, I must not have read the source code of the original implementation.
That is the difference between necessary and sufficient. Clean-room is sufficient to guarantee avoiding copyright, but it is not necessary. The line legally is south of there, but that position was chosen because they didn’t want to crossing and it was easier to argue for legally in court.
tl;dr: clean room is overkill for avoiding copyright infringement
Considering all of Trump’s shenanigans it’s impressive it’s just that. With Hormuz, tariffs, and America first, this is the equivalent of a fender dent after spinning out on black ice.
During the AI layoffs they’ll be the first to go and we’ll be back to the always working bread winner dad. Not saying I like it, just saying that’s my read of the tea leaves.
> That's asking every company to prove a negative before rolling out new features.
That’s not as rediculous as it seems. That’s sort of model that drug manufacturers follow. It would also mean that if internally they see troubling behaviour they know they have to stop.
Practically, it would be corporate cover up. And applied earnestly it would make these businesses unviable.
I work remotely following a divorce because my children live here. It's not something I would choose for myself and will be looking to move once they graduate.
That's because everyone else has access to the same tools. If you don't become more productive then you will be replaced with someone who will.
They only way it'd help you is if you controlled access to AI and it was a competitive advantage for you over a fellow developer. A rising tide lifts all boats... but you are only paid for how much taller you are than the other boats.
It's important to understand that AI is capital, and it's to the owner of the capital go the spoils. Your capital is in your skills, but they are a commodity and thus you have limited leverage.
Who benefits from AI is smaller businesses who could not afford custom application development at previous development costs. It's like faster laptops and better IDEs didn't boost developer salaries.