UebVar

You are misinformed, I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.

As I said, I do not know all legal systems in the world. If there one where "material gain" matches your idea, please cite the law or a case that includes LLM usage. As I explained in the canadian law even includes services and yet it is so much very much not matching the defintion for reasons explained.

I do understand very well what you mean by "fraud", I do not miss represent it - your opinion on what it should be is plain and simple wrong. I explained why in my previous posts.

You are under the impression that legal science is some kind of folk etymology. It absolutely is not. Fraud is §263 StGB, Art. 313-1 Code penal or §380 of the canadian criminal code. (They all are remarkably similar, because they share a millennia old tradition. Making them IMHO fascinating cultural artifacts.) Here [0] is a structured version of on of these texts. Think of it as a symbolic execution of the law. You can see there is structural mismatch with your "case". Nobody ubsurbs anything from somebody else, and all three laws incude that in their defintion. That was my original claim.

You think you somehow can make up your own private definitions, develop your own private theories about them, apply them and argue about the semantics your made up terms. That is the opposite of how jurisprudence works. It rigorous, with well established scientific and scholastic methods. It operates on term defined by the law. In the case of "fraud" the previous citations, especially in criminal law, and nothing else. German legal science has its own theory what counts as "nothing else" under the name "Wortlautgrenze". These terms and methods vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but by surprisingly little.

Dont call your code a decorator pattern, because you think it is decorative. Different pattern libraries have definitions for that and you need to be able to argue it fits. Like wise, if you feel something involves some kind of misrepresentation its probably not fraud. If things have different names, that probably for a good reasons, especially in legal science.

[0] https://www.iurastudent.de/schemata/schema-zum-betrug-263-i-...

No, you are wrong.

In German and French (roman) legal systems this is a "Vermögensdelikt", and explicitly about material damage and gain. Yes, common law can be more broad (in canada it isn't really, it just also includes service, btw.), and yet it clearly does not meet the definition, as there is a damaged/defraued party and fraudulent/gaining party. We are not talking about somebody usurping somebody else reputation, after all.

You misuse a technical term that is well established since antiquity.

You do not know what this word means. If you want to argue about semantics, look up the definition. This works especially well for legal terms as laws define them.

(That said, IANAL and there are very many different legal systems and I am not ruling out there exists one that is competently different - laws can be changed a will, after all.)

It is also obviously not copyright infringement, because this is simply not how copyright works, at all. I cannot and will explain of all copyright here. Instead I will point this out: Every code produced by a human who read copyrighted code would fall under your definition.

I'm very certain that this is not fraud, across multiple legal systems, both roman and common law. In both cases fraud requires a person is deprived of a material good. Neither the defrauded person or their material loss is present in this case. Maybe there is a oddball legal system somewhere in the world where fraud is something entirely different, but i doubt it. "Fraud", just like "Decorator Pattern" is a well established concept and pretty simple concept, even if there are edge cases. This does not fit at all.

In academia this is miss-attribution, outside of academia this does not exist.

This is clearly not not copyright infringement either as LLMs do not claim copyright, nor could they. Just like the photograph taken by the monkey, or pictures drawn by crows. LLM output is not a creative work either.

If this is unethical or immoral is a totaly different question. I really dont think so and I dont think you argue that position well.

I think this is a meme in marketing departments, but not actually true.

For the longest time ICE car makers build cars that screamed "electric". They mostly where behind expectations. At that time the by far most successful EV brand was Tesla with the USP that their cars looked like cars, while the EV from the competition looked like video game asserts; the BMW EVs from that time where among the most ugly cars i have ever seen.

Now this has reversed. The current EVs from VW, Mercedes and BMW, Renault, Dacia, Fiat all look normal. The ordinary-looking BMW iX3 has a long waiting list since launch, VWs boring ID-cars are doing better than ever. Tesla has released the cybertruck that screams "electric" and is a sales disaster.

My personal conspiracy theory is that the ICE divisions wanted to prevent EVs cannibalizing their market and they pushed for ugliness or "differentiation".

People want cars to look like cars. This is tautologically true, but manufactures needed quite some time to figure that out.

This is historic. To put this into perspective for people how to not follow running: This is about about as big as "derGrobe" beating the one-minute-mark in 4b2c.

The french company IN Groupe.

I disagree. The plug is usually part of an appliance connector cable, that has no idea what happens to be on the other side aswell. If you size that cable for the same current as the socket, the cable itself is protected by the circuit breaker.

The correct spot for the fuse is the appliance itself. Fuses used to be easily replaceable, often with fuse holders [1]. I have, however, never seen a computer with one.

[1] https://uk.farnell.com/productimages/large/en_US/4578676.jpg

I feel like the humanoid form is getting in the way for that, and that a "Spot" like design with a hand on top is better suited for that. Also i think laundry and dishes are already 95% automated since about 50 years.

"Tech" was incredible light on CapExp compared with everything else (until AI hit, that is). That is what allowed its explosive growth. On the one hand alphabet is not used to that. On the other hand it is turning into a more normal business with more CapExp, and like other more "normal" business it uses more external investment. As a general rule of thumb: The more capex, the more leverage; for example commodity extraction, infrastructure or power generation are very capex heavy, and heavily leveraged.

Roads are not solving transportation, they are closer to a sophisticated trace track. Roads are a constrained Operational Design Domain:

- Geofenced areas

- pre-build structures

- Curated infrastructure

- fallback to gravel in times of the inevitable event of maintenance.

This is not general transportation, it is a highend infrastructure inside a controlled environment. The system degrades exactly where humans/horses do not: River crossings, Creeks, steep hillsides, marshes, beaches.

A river flooding a road is not and "edge case", it a usual occurrence, and a problem that roads do robustly solve. It works due to extensive maintenance, not because the asphalt can actually deal with water.

Scaling that beyond a few mapped US suburbs into Europe is a totally different problem. Dont get fooled by Wall Street stock pumping.

The interview started with the most mundane question "Who are you?", and the very first sentence of Wales is either a lie or misleading. The journalists asks for clarification (thats a journalists job, btw), and in his second sentence of the interview Wales insults the journalist. I'm pretty sure who is the jerk here.

It also was Wales who bought up the topic, not the journalist. If he considers it a stupid topic he does not want to talk about, why is it the very first thing he talks about?

(This is probably because Google Maps can be used for walking/biking too)

Please don't do that. The map is simply not good enough and does not have enough context (road quality, terrain, trail difficulty) for anything but very causal activity. Even then I highly recommend to use a proper map, electronic or paper.

No, and explanations on how it could work are implausible.

So you where banned for, by your own accord, motivated reasoning?

This is the best endorsement for wikipedia possible.

Arabic, even. An outlier, as it is AFAIK the only arabic dialect that is not written with the arabic alphabet. Also it's far removed from other arabic dialects.

Him being on the board of Palantir seems very specific. Empowering the worlds dictators is not compatible with my idea of a good guy.

Yes, you did.

We phased out nuclear power plants

your words. simple past tense.

As you can see in the first link, there was a 472 TWh production of nuclear Nuclear power in 2024, in contrast to your claim that it was phased out. It didn't really changed that much - the absolute change in coal or renewables combinded is larger.

What you say is spectacular and completely wrong.

What you claim didn't happen, and can easily disproven with data. Your interpretation of a reasoning of a policy (that didn't happen) is bad faith.

You are wrong about both electricity [1], gas[2] and total energy [3].

Europe was very dependent on energy imports in the past and current policy is the by far most successful attempt in a long at changing it. It will help us for decades to come.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...

[2] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-t...

[3] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...

because they can only solve things that are already within their training set.

That is just plain wrong, as anybody who spent more than 10 minutes with a LLM within the last 3 years can attest. Give it a try, especially if you care to have an opinion on them. Ask an absurd question (that can be, in principle, answered) that nobody has asked before and see how it performs generalizing. The hype is real.

I'm interested what study you refer to. Because I'm interested in their methods and what they actually found out.

This is "can" has exactly the same meaning as in "UB can make your programms faster". You could replace it with "it does, at least with clang". LTO is, in this regard, the same as UB, and unlike guaranteed optimizations, such as the single member optimization, or the empty base optimization.

I have worked in big environments. My idea about "big" might be naive, environments spanning different Oses and different, including old languages like fortran and pascal. But I never been in a situation where I couldn't check out said code, and open it in my ide and build it. If you can't that sounds like a another case of deficient tooling. Justifying deficient tooling.

These where not some SWE wonderlands either. The code was truly awful at times.

The Joel test is 25 years old. It's a industry standard. I, and many other people consider it a minimum requirement for software engineering. If code the "2. Can you make a build in one step?" requirement i should be ide-browsable in one step.

If it takes weeks to replicate a setup the whole environment is deeply flawed. The one-step build is the second point on the list because Joel considered it the second most important thing, out of 12.

The argument is tautological.

I want to use a text editor => This is the wrong tool => Yes, but I want to use a text editor.

These people do use the wrong tooling. The only way to cure this grievance is to use proper tooling.

The github webui has some ide features, such as symbol search. I don't see any reason why not use a proper ide. github.dev is a simple click in the ui away. When you use gerrit, do a local checkout, that's one git command.

If you refuse to use the correct tools for the job, your experience is degraded. I don't see a reason to consider this case when writing code.

Somewhat separating owning and non owning memory in the type system goes a long way. Also a much better standard library and a stricter typing discipline.

The fact that it's mostly backwards compatible means you can reproduce almost all issues of c in c++ awell, but the average case fares much better. Real world C++ does not have double-frees, for example. (As real world C++ does not have free() calls).

If you don't use an IDE, you are doing it wrong, plain and simple.

Editing png with a text editor is also much harder than editing ppm. But there is no reason to consider this usecase when defining a image format.

Implementing a constexpr strlen() is trivial and I looks just like it's from your ancient C textbook, save for the "constexpr" keyword. No goofyness involved.

Or you use what the C++ standard library has to offer.

std::string_view(ptr).length(); or std::string(ptr).length(); or std::char_traits<char>::length(ptr); all work at compile time.