ejz

I think it is very reasonable to be up in arms about transit funding in the US until we get our costs under control. If we had Asian levels of cost-per-mile we would be rioting if we didn't have our current levels of spending.

Disagree. Parking structures are complements for transit and current levels are not adequate. I believe in getting places fast; I'm not a zealot for or against any particular modality.

I find it baffling that so few hardware makers get it. This not only is a killer feature. It also is so lightweight. It would power the system requirements dramatically.

Read the article! Apple and Tesla aren’t the comps. Companies like Intel and Broadcom are. The industry as a whole has a 23% margin.

The 20% margin this year was an anomaly. It’s usually closer to 29%+

The interesting thing is that the biggest changes to how we handle software patents came from the courts, not Congress. I suspect that eBay v. Mercexchange had a bigger impact on SCOTUS than Amazon did, but there was a ton of law review activity around the '411 patent. I must imagine this was a factor in judicial decisions around 101 eligibility.

Fair enough. I haven’t seen the invalidation proceedings and am clearly less of an expert than you. So don’t know whether they got it right. Non-obviousness is, erm, non-obvious.

This is a huge issue with the patent world in general. There's just so much prior art out there, and you have to be really clear about showing that it applies. This isn't a patent case, but I have a great Google Maps case involving Wi-Fi where a judge completely borked it. As for this particular patent, I'm not enough of an XML expert to say whether the court got it right here. But it is worth noting that Microsoft tried to invalidate the patent several times with USPTO and failed to do so there as well. So perhaps there's something more to the patent than meets the eye, or that is was novel at that time but not modern XML. Remember, the actual i4i patent at issue was filed in 1994, and it only matters if there was prior art from before 1994. It might have been novel at the time.

This isn't want Joel is talking about here.

On the backend, all .docx files use XML. Joel is saying the root XML format was difficult to work with.

What my article is about is this: Microsoft used to allow users to write their own custom XML rules on top of Word. (This was mostly app developers using XML for macros rather than end users, and overall it was very rare.) This is the feature that was at issue with the patent.

Sorry if this was not clear!

Thanks for reading. Sorry if this was confusing! Microsoft said that i4i was a patent troll despite the court repeatedly telling Microsoft to not do that. The judge referred to Microsoft's repeated ignoring of its instructions as "persistent" etc. i4i had an operating business; it wasn't a patent troll. That operating business is niche and small, but it is real. I have updated that sentence to make it clearer. Thanks for your feedback!

Unclear which way it would go. I hope that would happen. But either way it would solve a major incentive misalignment. Even if SF stays just as progressive it will be much more functional.

I didn’t have room to mention everything. I had to cut a lot! But Clipper is a cool example. Clipper is a nice interface for transit consolidation but making that the centerpiece is, in my opinion, very unambitious.

Everyone would still get to vote. It would just be in a combined city instead of many small ones.

I don't see the most important format right now... .kfx :(

I don't think this case is about GPU copying, since that's not what's alleged in the complaint. Mostly, they are alleging that Silverman's book was in a training set that contained an unauthorized copy.

I wrote this post in a way that was meant to be brief, clear, and honestly a little snarky. If I was writing a brief, I'd have gone through a more detailed analysis, but I think fails for a number of reasons, including fair use for the copying, transformative use for the AI system, and frankly a lack of damages because the LLM isn't distributing copies of her work (which is one reason they are trying to establish Silverman as a lead plaintiff in a class action suit). I glossed over a lot of this discussion to keep the post brief. But of course, this post is not legal advice, it's just a quick (and hopefully fun!) blog. I am much more knowledgeable about patent law than copyright law, by the way, and acknowledge any flaws in my post.

Most importantly, I wanted to highlight what I view as a real difference between what copyright holders want from copyright and the policy goals of copyright. What I believe they want is a patent, but what they have is a copyright. They are intended to achieve very different policy goals and as such have different structures.

Seems like not that much power. I guess you could build this into solar panels (some kind of coating?) so that they generate power when it rains too so that the percentage of time the panel generates power is higher. But would the decrease in efficiency justify it or would it decrease the overall wattage produced? Maybe in places where it rains a lot, like Seattle, that would be worth it to increase the percentage of time it is producing power?

The two classes focus on video games, so I think (Twitt)er is fine (though if Twitter launched a Twitch competitor one could see it becoming a problem for them!)

I know that these are famous last words on Hacker News, so I post them very hesitantly...but presumably this is bad news for Plaid, right?

One thing that this article missed was that it was San Diego centric. In Israel, desalination is a much bigger part of the ecosystem. Over half of its domestic water comes from desalination. Quite a bit of the problem in California, as in almost every industrial application, is just that we make it hard to do anything with atoms.

“Automakers think the problem is touch screens and not their software”

There, I fixed that headline for you

Total chaos. It's a vol game, but you need a lot of time to do it well (and honestly need to know drivers of market volume, which is even harder to do from the outside).

This is actually the opportunity for our startup. I think there is generally a great opportunity to be the Databricks of a lot of academic software. We're starting in a big research area in biology :)

Remember when Eric Schmidt thought COVID-19 was going to increase demand for commercial real estate?

This doesn't make sense to me. There absolutely was a "like count". There were votes for decisions and there were citations for opinions. Academia is bitter for that reason. Yet, with the same incentives and much higher stakes they remained friends.

I suppose that this is consistent with Jacobin's worldview, wherein the US government is morally similar to the CCP. But for the rest of the rational world this just doesn't compute.

In addition to everything below, a great way to expand their Canadian presence to get around problems with American immigration laws.

Signed!

Indeed. This complex Nigerian crime ring is best known as PRINCE.

The short answer: no.

You will see some content go exclusive, but this is an inevitable feature of content-based markets. It's very difficult to differentiate yourself, and if you don't have your own content the content holders have the leverage to completely own you. It's what happened to Netflix. No one is complaining about them having their own shows.

Spotify might even help. The US podcast market is stunted by the lack of good apps. Maybe with the power and money of a Spotify we can make a podcast app that lets providers make way more money, get way better analytics, and see actual feature-level innovation.

Look at useparagon.com for #9

It’s tough to see how a court would rule. Existing privacy law cares a lot about whether what you’re doing is some kind of trespass. In this case, it would be trespass on chattel. I wouldn’t have guessed that a court would accept this reasoning for property in a public space, but that’s happened this year in Taylor v. Saginaw, the tire chalking case. The stingray is eventually going to go to SCOTUS and I’m not sure how they’ll rule. Modern conservatives don’t like trespass, but they do like law enforcement.