otterley

How can you miss cranky geeks when HN is full of them?

At what speed, I wonder? In Japan I don’t think I ever saw one fully laden that was going faster than 40km/h (25mph).

Says who? Please provide a legal citation or at least an allegation.

Unfortunately, to Americans, that really doesn't matter. Even if they're not as fit for purpose, they prefer pickup trucks to minivans. It's a cultural thing.

(I realize you're probably being responsive to the word "need" - it's more what they claim they need than actually need. They could use a Japanese kei truck.)

Not everyone who owns a pickup tows with it. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a minority of owners who do. Some just need them for hauling plywood, others because they like the aesthetics.

Texas can't make that decision unilaterally. They'll have the First Amendment to contend with.

Besides, that's not even what this case is about. This is about access to pornography, not about the right to produce or disseminate it with or to consenting adults. Even if the latter rights are protected under the First Amendment, the courts have never said that Federal and state governments cannot restrict minors from accessing it.

Porn is protected speech, with the exception of CSAM and "obscene" materials. You do understand how exceptions work, don't you?

If you have further questions, ask an attorney who specializes in First Amendment law. I also recommend law school.

Of course CSAM isn’t protected. This story isn’t about CSAM though.

Wrong. Porn is considered protected speech unless it is considered “obscene” (which is an incredibly difficult bar to meet), and even possession of obscene material in one’s home is protected.

C’mon, people, these issues are trivial to look up the facts about. There’s no excuse for ignorance here. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/obscenity-and-pornog...

Oh, you're so clever. https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

Attempting to command well-meaning people to “stop doing X” as though you’re some sort of dictatorial authority is not only rude, but it’s also ineffective. I get it, it’s a spicy hook, but the effect turns quickly against you.

If you find yourself wanting to write like this, I recommend reconsidering. Persuade them instead.

The device is mysterious and important.

It only applies to DCs > 50MW.

On the contrary, AI agents are doing an outstanding job of catching and fixing them. The jury's still out on the cost-to-value ratio of improving existing code vs. rewriting it.

Better and direct source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf

You said earlier that we don't allow LLM-generated content on HN itself (i.e., the comments). So, at least in principle, that's already taken care of through exclusion.

If you mean the linked content: can come from anyone and anywhere--it's just whatever someone submits and is deemed good enough by The Algorithm to get attention. So that's not "HN content" - the content exists independently of HN. As for that, I'll repeat myself: the scientific community has managed somehow to intercommunicate for centuries despite language barriers before LLMs existed. (English was neither Einstein's nor Madame Curie's first language.) It's an existence proof that LLMs aren't needed to overcome those barriers.

Fraud is a crime, but admittedly, not all bullshitting is fraud.

Non native speakers have been on HN since its inception. Unless you mean something else?

I don’t buy it, Dan, because non-native English speakers were somehow managing to produce, publicize, and communicate before LLMs did the heavy lifting for them. Perhaps they had human assistance before, but the slop that’s so endemic today reminds us of its value.

I too wonder why as it’s not news.

That said, I don’t know whether Theo has since “eaten crow” or has otherwise personally evolved.

I’ll take someone who’s dumb over someone who is smart but rudely and confidently incorrect any day. Modesty, thoughtfulness, and kindness are too-undervalued virtues in our business.

Board certification is completely voluntary, even for specialists like cardiologists and nephrologists. They can also still be issued malpractice insurance (although the premiums may be higher).

First, legal proceedings are expensive and may cost more than the car is worth. Second, the lessor may not be solvent enough to pay the damages all at once (“you can’t squeeze blood from a stone”). Third, the money to take the car off the lot in a lease agreement is fronted by a third party, a lender. The lender is likely calling the shots here. See https://lessee.cula.com/documents/CULA-Lease-Welcome-Brochur...

For the same reason, purchase-money lenders (in a buy-vs-lease situation) typically require the debtor to hold a comprehensive insurance policy until the vehicle is paid off. It protects their interest.

"Slightly immature." You make it sound like his biggest sin is farting in an elevator and laughing about it.

Would you tolerate the sort of behavior Musk exhibits from your own children? (I'm assuming you are fully aware of all the unlawful, deceitful, and morally questionable acts he has taken throughout his life.)

You don’t have to pay if you stop using the feature. This is a huge nothing-burger.

The BSD license (which is the one at issue here) does not explicitly permit the licensee to change the license terms of covered software upon redistribution. Perhaps it would be permitted under an expansive interpretation, but under a narrow reading, it might not be. The default rule, however, is that all rights not granted by license remain with the owner.

As you said, the question has never been litigated or settled.

I would agree with you but for the author’s attempt to publish it under a new license. I think they can either claim it’s a new work (in which case it’s public domain) or claim it’s a derivative work (in which case I don’t think they can change the license).

I imagine a court would call it a derivative work if tested.

I’m not sure it’s so easily severable in this case.

A comic book is a physical object. This analogy doesn’t hold. When you give a comic book to someone, you’re only transferring the copy and its implied license that carries with it. You can set the terms of the physical object, but you can’t change the license of the content within it.

Suppose you get a license to view a copy of a work (streaming or a paid subscription to a newspaper site). Your permission to consume the media begins and ends with the license terms, which allow you to view the work (and, since it’s necessary, to make a transient copy) during the period of the subscription. You don’t get to relicense it to someone else under those terms.

IAAL (not legal advice) and I’m not sure the issue is settled.

The BSD license only explicitly permits the author “to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement.”

By default, the owner of a protected work retains all rights not conveyed to someone else. Changing the license isn’t one of the enumerated activities, and so I think there’s a case to be made that it’s not permitted.

Now if the author wants to claim it’s a new work, as opposed to a modification (which opens up a big bag of issues by itself because this was AI-authored), then the author can license it however they see fit.