namark @namark@qoto.org

@swiley yes and one would think you would prioritize the more pressing and relevant matters, as you had to be terse. But not to worry, one forgets, happens to all of us.

@swiley OP
> vaccine might have long term side effects
> vaccination in general doesn't require wide spread use

this reply:
> vaccine (you know the one) doesn't work
> vaccine is more deadly than all other vaccines combined
> vaccination in general doesn't require wide spread use

Thank you for clarifying how horrible the specific vaccine is. I wonder what were you thinking in the OP omitting such important information in favor of "long term effects"? Are you a an evil tyrannical global government agent?

I regret to inform you however, that vaccination in general still requires wide spread use to be effective. If I understood correctly your religion does not allow you to read this sentence, but hopefully I can trick you into doing it this time.

@swiley my point is that what appears to be the second paragraph of the OP is total BS. Nothing more nothing less.

@swiley
> writes ton of text
> admits that all but tiny portion of it is irrelevant
> doesn't get it

@swiley and your explanation is? You think I care about anything in this thread other than you. You and what you say is all I care about, my dear.

@swiley ah right, when talking about politics it's mandatory to write paragraph of BS, I forgot, sorry.

@swiley I'm glad we established that everything you said so far other then that short politically message is irrelevant, that's what I was getting at

@swiley ow wow, not everyone taking the vaccine results in the virus winning in the end... who would have thought?

@swiley then your argument should be that the vaccine is ineffective... and that's your only one it seems... none a single trace of it in OP... also stop imagining that I'm your political opponent and read what I wrote please

@swiley I don't care for your political rhetoric, but thank you for enlighening me that vaccines are magic potions of immunity, that do not require wide spread use, and that immunity is just a black and white, yes or no question, impervious to circumstance or time.

@swiley how deadly it is for people your age is irrelevant, the point of the vaccine is to eradicate the virus, so either most people take it or it's pointless. It's a question of whether you want to take your chances with the virus or the vaccine, which according to you, is a chance of some unknown long term side effects on you versus the chance of your neighbor or relative, who's old, a smoker or has immune system problems or something else along those lines, dying in the short term, keeping in mind that most people don't give a flying fuck about long term side effects of anything, unless of course it's some hot politically charged news.

@hanken no one ever expects arithmetic type promotion! This is why you can't in general implement/de-duplicate/replace operator+ with operator+=, and it's even bigger deal when you take into account types that use expression templates, or have bounds or measurement units associated with them at compile time.

@hanken move not guaranteed as in T might not have a move constructor? Preposterous! I'm not changing my functions you fix your types :<

Anyhow, I posted my answer
https://qoto.org/web/statuses/106862742673984441

@hanken it does? I though it makes it cheaper... sans a rookie mistake on my part, see this thread
https://qoto.org/web/statuses/106839448913933165

@Shamar "I might want to" is not a market. You might want to sell and they might not want to buy and just stick to other projects. Is there an established market of selling software as ANN datasets and are you a player in it? Was your project built and marketed as ANN training data? If not then what purposes was it built and marketed for and how does copilot interfere with it? The court will rule based on the realities and common sense of today, no theoretical possibilities.

I didn't find my own opinion form anywhere, but if you are interested you can look up the law yourself. There are plenty of direct quotes from court rulings in wikipedia if you just want something to discuss. The gist is, it's open to interpretation, leaning toward practical rather than ideological side of things. If it doesn't serve as a substitute for your work, and take your users/readers/viewers away directly because of this substitution, then it'll likely be considered fair use.

@bonifartius you are full on diverting now, your main argument hinges on sex work being an unworthy occupation, pathological akin to drug addiction. The "big tech" is milking every software industry that exists today, nothing specific to sex work. In-before the insecure teenagers (and adults) that are being exploited are insecure (and also uncultured) because of tabooization and demoization of sex that you are advocating for.

@retroartdt

@Shamar I don't know, to me compilation is a translation, not lossy compression. If some information is lost, then it is lost only because it has no meaning in the target language, otherwise it's a direct translation and also the main purpose of the program. Sometimes we even write the sources with specific translations in mind, like function inlining or tail call optimization.

That said any restrictions on binary distribution or reverse engineering, come from the license not from copyright law directly, and the arguments presented for copilot is that it's fair use, and licenses do not apply, bringing google book search as an example. From what I understand fair use essentially constitutes use that does not directly diminish the marketability of the original work, through copying substantial portions of it. If copilot somehow memorized even your entire project, it does not actually diminish the marketability of your project by itself, since the end product isn't even in the same market. Someone using copilot to produce a substantial copy of your work would do it, but that is on them. In my eyes the problem with this argument is that if that's the position that microsoft takes, then nobody in their right mind would want to use copilot as anything but curiosity. It's much more likely that they would want to take the position of lossy compression, that then generates original works, just like generating a random video with same number of red pixels, in which case you'll have the argument that it's not lossy enough, as it can produce substantial copies. Still don't think you can argue that ANN in general are derivative work of the data set. They are too general and the law is too fuzzy.

@bonifartius Those are all over pop culture. If you want real fringe try mercury. It's older than D but has one unfinished book and a couple of youtube videos on it max. Guess it never went door to door advertising itself as the lord and savior.

#include <type_traits>

static_assert(not std::is_same_v<
decltype(add1( short{1}, short{2} )),
decltype(add2( short{1}, short{2} ))
>);

@Shamar it really sounds more like a lossy compression then compilation for some "virtual" machine. You can't argue that in general lossy compression is derivative work. I can take screenshots of your entire codebase and redistribute them as jpegs. If the jpegs are readable it's derivative work or even straight up copy, if they are not, then it's clearly not either of those thing. Similarly I can scan your video for the number of red pixels per frame, then generate some white noise with the same number of red pixels per frame, again clearly not a derivative work (even if it turns out to be objectively better than your original video). ANN are too general to argue in absolutes about them, like you can with source to binary translation, and doing so only weakens the case against copilot specifically.

Also while the article links to the arguments of "lawyers and politicians" it does not in any way fairly represent them in the narrative or directly address them. The arguments basically boil down to copilot being a weird search engine, and that's it's up to the user to ensure they do not end up violating any license terms while using this weird search engine, basically by making sure that they never generate large bodies of code with it, and limit the use to small snippets. That's their explanation of why it fails under fair use and why copyright law doesn't apply, not that it does not contain the original sources. It does contain them is some form, just like a search engine database would and that's not a problem, since it does not somehow automatically release all of it under pulbic domain or something, it requires human input to do anything and said human then assumes all responsibility.