The only person who has standing to say anything is the original author of the code, the holder of the copyright.
It's possible, but very unlikely, the copyright license wasn't actually violated because, for example, the fork could have arranged a separate license.
You can get it under a GPL license for free. You can pay them money to get it under a Commercial license that would let you modify the code without releasing changes.
So, while I doubt it happened, the person who forked it here could have contacted the original author, the copyright holder, and asked for an exemption from the GPL terms.
I'm sure the people who work for an administration that by and large flaunts court orders responsible for this will get right on that.....aaaand it's gone.
ORMs have the problem that they are only useful for projects with some complexity but not too much.
It’s overkill for small projects and not expressive enough if you’re doing really complicated stuff. Even if you do have a good use case for an ORM currently as your requirements grow it gets harder to hack stuff on that you need.
Their comparison is not clear at all what you’re getting out of a rather large subscription price, IMO.
> Substantially more usage to work with Claude
Compared to pro or free what does this mean? More requests / time? More tokens / time? Something else?
> Scale usage based on specific needs
Are there limits with pro that this is removing or increasing? What kinds of specific needs?
> Higher output limits for better and richer responses and Artifacts
So Claude will do more thinking before responding compared to pro? Is that due to a new variant of 3.7 model?
> Be among the first to try the most advanced Claude capabilities
Okay so you’ll get access before people who pay less but not before well known tech people who get early access for testing, I’m assuming?
> Priority access during high traffic periods
If you’re paying for pro and they throttle you wtf are you paying them for? This seems like an admission they suck at capacity planning based on their current and predicted user base?
The main questions I have with using LLMs for this purpose in a business setting are:
1. Is the company providing the model willing to indemnify _your_ company when using code generation? I know GitHub Copilot will do this with the models they provide on their hardware, but if you’re using Claude Code or Cursor with random models do they provide equal guarantees? If not I wonder if it’s only a matter of time before that landmine explodes.
2. In the US, AFAICT, software that is mostly generated by non-humans is not copyrightable. This is not an issue if you’re creating code snippets from an LLM, but if you’re generating an entire project this way then none or only small parts of the code base you generate would then be copyrightable. Do you still own the IP if it’s not copyrightable? What if someone exfiltrates your software? Do you have no or little remedy?
It’s common practice to put your preferences and tips/advice into a readme solely for the LLM to consume to learn about what you want it to do.
So you’d set things like code standards (and hopefully enforce them via feedback tools), guides for writing certain architectures, etc. Then when you have the LLM start working it will first read that readme to “learn” how you want it to generally behave.
I’ve found that I typically edit this file as time goes on as a way to add semi-permanent feedback into the system. Even if your context window gets too large when you restart the LLM will start at that readme to prime itself.
AP is a major source for breaking news. Forcing journalists to only go with the executive branch’s narrative or else face being banned is not a sign of free press.
Additionally, saying it’s harmless trolling is not what I think any sane person wants their government to be in the business of doing. These people are supposed to be adults, why are they acting like immature children?
The last I looked into this, iMessage offers end to end encryption and RCS doesn't by default. Apple (rightfully, IMO) refuses to use Googles non open source end to end encryption extension that also would require key exchange on Google owned servers.
As opposed to apples non open source solution that requires device authentication on apple owned servers... I think none of them really care about interoperability here, or they would release something open and able to do e2ee instead of this dance. I mean signal protocol is right there and available to everyone.
That isn't exactly accurate. The standard doesn't have e2ee, but if you use google messages with RCS with other android phone it is end to end encrypted. But it uses a proprietary google extension to RCS. But I would be surprised if google wasn't willing to work with apple to get e2ee RCS working between iMessage and google Messages, but Apple has no interest in that.
Just so I understand: it's bad for Apple to have a proprietary E2EE solution, but it's good for Google to have one, and additionally it's Apple's fault for not using Google's?
It isn't as simple as "apple bad, google good". Apple/iOS having E2EE is good. Apple refusing to cooperate at all in making E2EE interoperable with non apple products is bad. Google/Android having E2EE is good, and better than the claim above that RCS doesn't have E2EE by default. The fact that it is a proprietary extension is bad, but they seem more willing to interoperate. That said, if the positions were reversed, I suspect Google would also be more resistant to interoperability.
So, explain exactly who Google is collaborating with by offering support for Jibe exclusively for certified Android devices with Google Play Services and only available through their proprietary messaging app.
> That said, if the positions were reversed, I suspect Google would also be more resistant to interoperability.
With Apple adding support to iOS for RCS, the shoe is on the other foot.
Google is not cooperating with anyone when it comes to their existing proprietary E2EE implementation. E2EE is available in Google's client only, able to be run on the Android devices Google certifies, when talking through Google's RCS server.
That is because the core of their security model is a centralized key server, outside of the rest of RCS, that acts as the source of truth for an account and its associated public keys.
That fails once you have accounts which are not being authoritatively managed by Google, e.g. an email address with multiple messaging services attached, or a phone number which may be managed by any number of third party RCS installations. That is a problem which is still being actively solved.
Reducing the number of polling places in districts that tend to not vote Republican causing very long lines for voting. When it takes hours standing in line, often outdoors in bad weather, it discourages voting. Add to that laws in many states that criminalize providing food or water to people in such lines and it is even more discouraging.
Prosecuting people for innocent mistakes while voting. E.g., Crystal Mason [1]. Or Hervis Rogers [2].
In the Rogers case he was convicted of burglary in 1995 and was in prison until being paroled in 2004. His parole ended in June 2020. He didn't know that he was ineligible to vote, and voted in the Democratic primary in March 2020. The Texas legislature did pass a bill in 2007 that required the Department of Criminal Justice to notify people who had been in custody of their voting rights situation, but Governor Perry vetoed it.
Texas attorney general Paxton had him arrested and prosecuted. Bail was set at $100000. Eventually the case was thrown out because the attorney general does not have the authority to unilaterally prosecute voter cases. He has to get approval from local country prosecutors.
In nearly all these cases the prosecutors are very disproportionately prosecuting minorities and women.
Same with processes to restore voting rights for felons. See Rick Scott's handling of petitions to restore voting rights in Florida [3].
> And please don't say voter ID, nobody is disenfranchised by voter ID.
There are in fact a lot of US adults without an ID that works for their state's voter ID laws and would have a hard time getting such an ID because of cost (monetary and/or time). Here's a relatively recent report on the number who lack ID [4].
Yes, I know that most state voter ID laws require there to be no cost or fee to obtain the ID from the state but there are often significant costs to obtain the documents required to apply for the ID. Furthermore the offices that can process the application are often far away from where the people without ID live, and only accept applications during limited weekday hours. That can mean having to take unpaid time off from work and finding a way to get to that office. In reality that all can add up to over a $100.
If it was actually about election security and not intended to disenfranchise legal voters the voter ID laws would include provisions to make it easy to obtain ID without those burdens described above.
Here's a link to a comment that contains a dozen links with a lot more detail [5].
EDIT: I missed a disenfranchisement tactic. Election officials should go through the voter rolls occasionally and purge people who they have good reason to doubt are still eligible. But that can be turned into a disenfranchisement tactic by doing that just before an election possibly without trying to notify the purged voters that they have been purged so that the purged voters who are still eligible don't find out until it is too late to get back on the rolls in time to vote.
