One of the things that's come up in several trade deals Canada has negotiated is how protectionist we (as a country) are when it comes to dairy.
We have not experienced the massive increases in pricing on eggs. The supply management system effectively works to keep farms roughly below a certain size, and seems to have helped avoid large impacts on certain staple foods.
The usual rhetoric against this is that we should be getting cheaper prices by letting in foreign competition. This ignores that doing so would allow foreign subsidies to wipe out our local supply of critical foodstuffs, then making us dependent.
It's not an ideal system but it seems to have yielded some tangible results when things like bird flu are making their rounds.
After the utter bullshit pulled in California, better hope your state is willing to defend its water reservoirs or for some places clean tap water may be the least of their problems.
> Because that would be jumping to conclusions based purely on racial prejudices.
Not purely. There may be some prejucide but look at Nortel[1] as a famous example of a situation where technological espionage from Chinese firms wreaked havoc on a company's fortunes and technology.
I too would want to see the evidence and forensics of such a breach to believe this is more than sour grapes from OpenAI.
Nortel survived the fucking great depression. But a bunch of outright fraudulent activity by it's C-Suite to bump stock prices led to them vastly overstating and overplanning and over-committing resources to a market that was much much smaller than they were claiming. Nortel spent billions and billions on completely absurd acquisitions while they were making no money explicitly to boost their stock price.
That was all laid bare when the telecom bust happened. Then the great recession culled some of the dead wood in the economy.
Huawei stealing tech from them did not kill them. This was a company so rotten that the people put in charge right after this huge scandal put the investigative lights on them IMMEDIATELY turned around and pulled another scam! China could have been completely removed from history and Nortel would have died the same. They were killed by the same disease that killed and nearly killed a lot of stuff in 2008, and are still trying to kill us: Line MUST go up.
We all use PCs and heck even phones that have thousands of times the system memory of the first PCs.
Making something work really efficiently on older hardware doesn't necessarily imply less demand. If those lessons can be taken and applied to newer generations of hardware, it would seem to make the newer hardware all the more valuable.
It's clear that this is an authority that the president does not possess. The President does not have unilateral authority to impound funds. Congress has the power of the purse.
It's clear, but political power only exists if it's used. If congress grants this power to the executive, they render themselves all but irrelevant. They'd be a rather expensive and unattractive claque.
No, its clear that it is authority the President does not have under the Constitution, and even when Congress tried to give the President a small fraction of this power in the 1996 Line Item Veto Act, that Act itself was found to be unconstitutional: its power the President doesn't have under the Constitution and could not Constitutionally be given.
Good read on what someone in a specific field considers to have been achieved (rightly or wrongly). It does lead me to wonder how many of these old manuscripts and their translations are in the training set. That may limit its abilities against any random sample that isn't included.
Then again, maybe not; OCR is one of the most worked on problems, so the quality of parsing characters into text maybe shouldn't be as surprising.
Off topic: it's wild to me that in 2025 sites like substack don't apply `prefers-color-scheme` logic to all their blogs.
I work in copyright law. Familiarize yourself with the AFC test concept and I'm willing to have a conversation about what would be copyrightable in this project of mine.
You misunderstand, the repo lists an MIT license which requires attribution. You want people to give you credit if they use this LLM-generated code.
LLMs which were trained on the works of thousands of other developers with similar licenses, who are offered no similar credit here.
It also claims copyright of the code as though you have authored it, but you're claiming here to have used LLMs to generate it. Seems like trying to have it both ways.
I want people to give me attribution for the parts of my project that are copyrightable.
From the article,
The second step is to remove from consideration aspects of the program which are not legally protectable by copyright. The analysis is done at each level of abstraction identified in the previous step. The court identifies three factors to consider during this step: elements dictated by efficiency, elements dictated by external factors, and elements taken from the public domain.
This means that the code written for interfacing with an external API, eg, GitHub OAuth, would not be covered by any sort of copyright as the expression is dictated by requirements of the API itself.
The overall structure and organization of the code was not generated by LLMs and is fully covered by copyright.
LLMs are in fact very good at writing code that would probably not be copyrightable in the first place and are pretty bad at writing the overall expressive systems structures that would be covered by copyright.
> I want people to give me attribution for the parts of my project that are copyrightable.
A requirement not extended to the open source developers whose code you are using essentially a copyright and licensing laundering engine to get around.
I've seen many devs extrapolate this thinking too far into sending only the most simple queries and doing all of the record filtering on the application end. This isn't what I think you're saying -- just piggybacking to try and explain further.
The key thing here is to understand that you want the minimal correct query for what you need, not to avoid "making the database work".
The given example is silly because there's additional parameters that must be either NULL or have a value before the query is sent to the DB.
You shouldn't send queries like:
SELECT \* FROM users
WHERE id = 1234
AND (NULL IS NULL OR username = NULL)
AND (NULL IS NULL OR age > NULL)
AND (NULL IS NULL OR age < NULL)
But you should absolutely send:
SELECT \* FROM users
WHERE id = 1234
AND age > 18
AND age < 35
While sub-optimal, your first example is probably fine to send and I'd expect to be simplified early during query planning at a negligible cost to the database server.
What you shouldn't send is queries like:
SELECT \* FROM users
WHERE ($1 IS NULL OR id = $1)
AND ($2 IS NULL OR username = $2)
AND ($3 IS NULL OR age > $3)
AND ($4 IS NULL OR age < $4)
because now the database (probably) doesn't know the value of the parameters during planning and needs to consider all possibilities.
Interesting. I try to use prepared statements to avoid redoing the planning. But since the database schema is small compared to the data, the cost of query planning is quickly negligible compared to running an generic query that is inefficient.
We have not experienced the massive increases in pricing on eggs. The supply management system effectively works to keep farms roughly below a certain size, and seems to have helped avoid large impacts on certain staple foods.
The usual rhetoric against this is that we should be getting cheaper prices by letting in foreign competition. This ignores that doing so would allow foreign subsidies to wipe out our local supply of critical foodstuffs, then making us dependent.
It's not an ideal system but it seems to have yielded some tangible results when things like bird flu are making their rounds.