This isn't the kind of thing you can do with a license, as long as training a model doesn't require a license. Now, that's an open question legally in the US, and there are active lawsuits, but that does seem like the way it's most likely to play out.
Why do you think there's was an implicit agreement that documentation was only intended for humans? I've written a lot of documentation, much of it open source, and I'm generally very excited that it has proved additionally useful via LLMs. If you had asked me in 2010 whether that was something I intended in writing docs I'm pretty sure I would have said something like "that's science fiction, but sure".
You still intended it for humans. Intent is defined by what one is aiming for, and without knowledge of an alternative, that was your intent.
100% I get that you are OK with it being used by non-human ingestion. And I think many might be OK with that.
One thing, I'm not sure how helpful the documentation is. I think we're getting training out of example, not docs. This makes me think... we could test this by creating a new pseudo-language, and then provide no examples, only docs.
If the LLM can then code effectively after reading the docs, we'd have a successful test. Otherwise? It's all parroting.
This absolutely depends on the frequency of UVC and the intensity of the lamp. The lamps this post links such as https://aerolamp.net are putting out 222-nm, which is much safer than longer UVC wavelengths and the intensity is well under TLV when placed 8.5ft up (or higher).
Ahh. Maybe because I'm AU-based millennial, but the only "food pyramid" I was aware of was the grains-heavy 90s one that I would randomly see here and there, so that was my point of reference.
you're correct, my eyesight gets worse as the day goes on and i saw the second "9" as an 8. that only partially reduces the impact from my claim of X, Millennial, Zoomer; as i am gen X and i was still in "middle school" when the food pyramid came out, and my millennial sister assuredly was. the older Gen X (from the early 1970s) may or may not remember (as in an only child and childless until after the poster was no longer used) this from their younger years in classrooms.
My main point was (i think!) that really the only people seeing these posters on a regular basis are schoolchildren. I think i've seen the pyramid a dozen times in the last 20 years, on cereal boxes or websites or whatever, but if you don't recognize it, it's easily written off. Maslow also had a pyramid, etc.
I would be interested in knowing what cereal box you saw it on or where you saw it promoted seriously in the last 20 years.
In the late 90s I was in high school in a town with less that 80k people in the middle of the congenital USA and the pyramid with bread, cereal, rice and pasta at the base was not seriously pushed, or taken seriously, at school or when it came up outside of school.
> Port allocation is hash-based—deterministic from branch name, no conflicts:
> hash_val = sum(ord(c) for c in branch_name)
> django_port = 8001 + (hash_val % 99)
> Six agents, six features, one phone.
What do you mean, no conflicts? The probability of a collision with six branches and 99 ports slots is ~14% assuming optimal hashing (which this decidedly isn't).
You also don't need fail2ban, if the entire VM is behind a firewall that only allows the tailscale coordination traffic, nothing is going to reach the VM for fail2ban to work on.
It all depends on how much context the reader has. For some audiences a comment explaining bounding boxes would be helpful; for others your example comment adds nothing that isn't immediately apparent from the code.
Part of figuring out a reasonable level of commenting (and even variable naming) is a solid understanding of your audience. When in doubt aiming low is good practice, but keep in mind that this was 2D graphics software written at a 2D graphics software company.
* If a country doesn't have "closed borders" then many foreigners can visit if they follow certain rules around visas, purpose, and length of stay. If instead anyone can enter and live there with minimal restrictions we say it has "open borders".
* If a journal isn't "closed access" it is free to read. If you additionally have permissions to redistribute, reuse, etc then it's "open access".
* If an organization doesn't practice "closed meetings" then outsiders can attend meetings to observe. If it additionally provides advance notice, allows public attendance without permission, and records or publishes minutes, then it has “open meetings.”
* A club that doesn't have "closed membership" is open to admitting members. Anyone can join provided they meet relevant criteria (if any) then it's "open membership".
Google doesn't have to do that now after already having established its own monopoly... just like SerpApi wouldn't have to act deceptively if they had a monopoly on search.
Because they've forced everyone to allow them. They're the internet traffic mafia. Block them and you disappear from the internet
They abuse this power to scrape your work, summarize it and cut you out as much as possible. Pure value extraction of others' work without equal return. Now intensified with AI
nobody is forcing anyone. This is the same argument that people said about google search. Nobody is forcing anyone to use google search, google chrome, or even allow googlebot for scraping.
Thousands of poeple have switched over to chatgpt, brave/firefox ..
Your argument sounds like "I dont like Apple's practices, and I'm forced to buy iPhones. No buddy, if you dont like Apple, dont buy their products"
It's actually a different crawler for training data: Googlebot-extended so you can exclude yourself from the training data though not the search summaries.
reply