HN user

ctippett

1,160 karma

An Australian Kiwi living in London.

[username]@gmail.com

Posts10
Comments279
View on HN

IANAL, but the parent comment quotes "any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement", which I take to mean it's the profit Anthropic stands to make based on its use of the pirated content that's recoverable.

Given the entire global economy is currently bullish on the potential profitability of AI, I dare say they got off incredibly lightly settling for just $3k per book.

It's unlikely the USA would be granted an exclusive patent for the atomic bomb given the well-established existence of prior-art in the form of nuclear fission on the sun.

(I actually appreciated your analogy, despite my lark)

Thanks for sharing this, I'm not sure I would've come across it otherwise.

Ironically, watching the two shorts had me second-guessing whether what I was watching was actually AI-generated and not created by a professional. It's like peeking at what lies beyond the Overton horizon... only to see it wrap around until we're right back where we started.

You mentioned Bosch and I can't think of anywhere or anyone else who'd be interested in this little bit of trivia, so a random comment on a thread about filing the edges off a laptop seems like a fitting place to share it.

Bosch dates their appliances using a thing called the Fertigungsdatum Number. The first two digits represent the year of manufacture, the second two are for the month. Except the year doesn't align with the actual year, you first have to add 20. Why 20? Well, Bosch first started using their internal dating system back in 1920 and appliances from that year started with the code "00". I had an oven that had a date of "7808", which means it was manufactured in August 1998 (it lasted almost 30 years before we finally had to replace it last month).

In 2020 the system wound back around and started with "00" again.

Immich 3.0 20 days ago

I have a static route configured on my home's gateway that enables any device on my network to access Tailscale. I have Tailscale turned on my iPhone pretty much all the time anyway, but even if I didn't I'd still be able to access services I have hosted that are only accessible on my tailnet.

I can't speak for the others, but registering a .aero domain requires submitting an application that's reviewed by a human and assessed based on the domain's relevancy to the aviation industry.

I've owned several pairs of AirPods over the years and this is the first I'm learning about some of their features. I almost found myself wanting there to be a third column for indicating Apple support (of course I'm being facetious).

I think that's what everyone is going to think.

Hot take: At least they're ripping the bandaid now instead of stringing users along and eventually abandoning it like they normally do.

I never really used the Antigravity IDE, but had it installed. The update also made me do a double take and wonder what the hell was going on.

It seems like Google is hitting the reset button on the product they call "Antigravity", existing users be damned. Fine, if you've never installed or used the previous version before... but for existing users the "bait and switch" is incredibly disorientating.

My take is they saw the market size for a general agentic tool as being larger and more significant than a specialised IDE. It shows a pretty large lack of respect for users in the later group though.

It appeals to me as a minimalistic version of the Bear[1] notes app.

A few years ago I played around with copying the Bear app interface for the web, the idea was to create a visually identical mockup of the app so you could immediately visualise changes made when customising various theme values. I stalled with the implementation of the last part, but the rest of it is up at bear.christippett.dev

[1] https://bear.app

Am I correct that this has come about because archive.org respects robots.txt and these sites have blocked their crawler from indexing their sites?

I'm not sure how to articulate my thoughts on this exactly, other than to say it's disappointing that doing the right thing (i.e. respecting robots.txt) is rewarded with the burden of soliciting responses to a petition while at the same time others are rewarded with profit for ignoring those same directives.

This is perhaps where our perspectives differ, because I see the usage of LLMs not as an external third-party (another team per your example), but instead as an extension of one's self. Given that lens, I'm highly sensitive to the quality and function of its output, because ultimately its contribution is my responsibility.

I appreciate not everyone feels this way, but that's why I personally would be anathema not to read its code.

Yeesh, is "never reading the code" really the modus operandi we want from AI?

Microsoft, for all their warts, at least had the compassion to call their AI product "Copilot", suggesting we have some residual agency in whatever it is that it produces.