> The percentage of users that need this functionality is exceptionally low.
I am not sure about this -- I do know users who rely on post-cloning to update their sites. And I don't think it's unreasonable that this functionality should be fore.
But what I would say is, it's not a slam-dunk as a piece of generalised functionality, though it might be possible to implement it fairly completely for the core post types.
It would almost certainly need new core hooks. There are questions for example about who can clone whose posts -- do the editing and ownership mechanisms need updating, etc. And it might need reassessing in the Gutenberg era.
I've found post cloning plugins to be an adequate solution here.
It does after all refer to a contract people were apparently pressured into signing when quitting (and not when signing up), that apparently offered no new consideration, and required them to never say anything bad about OpenAI, for life, on penalty of losing remuneration another signed contract entitled them to.
It's journalism. But even the lawyers are saying "egregious". Which is really really not good in this context.
"Draconian" fits, considering how it is normally used.
Egregious is a much better word that doesn't intentionally sound alarming.
The only new information here is that his signature was on these documents. This article took 18 paragraphs to say that.
Real journalism that wasn't influenced by SEO or ad views should probably be one sentence with the new information and a link to a previous article filling in the missing context, for those who happen not to have it.
Now consider the thing that is happening: someone is being essentially pressured to agree a contract forcing them to stay functionally silent about anything bad they experienced or saw at OpenAI, on pain of losing things they've already earned.
For that individual's experience, "draconian" -- harsh, unusually severe, repressive -- seems like it would be a good fit, right?
And as it is not in the title or the subhead, it's not really being deployed to be clickbait, is it? The title is even more damning
(As an aside, why should this article not intentionally sound alarming? This whole situation is a pretty damning indictment of one of the most influential startups on earth right now. IMO it is alarming.)
> The only new information here is that his signature was on these documents.
This is what's called "confirming the story". News organisations do this all the time -- corroborate their competitors' stories -- and it is absolutely news.
In this case it's a really big bit of news, to people outside the tech world: it means there will likely prove to be concrete, potentially-lawsuit-bound corroboration that Sam Altman is not "consistently candid".
Are you basing this off of the assumption that every single person reading this has the same relationship to specific words as you?
Egregious and draconian create the same “idea” in my head. There is literally no way to write that takes into account each persons relationship with words.
Mmm, though I think these are two angular perspectives on the same idea, more than they are the same idea.
I feel "egregious" makes more sense for the idea of these bullshit contracts in the general case -- the idea that a lawyer wrote them or signed off on them.
"Draconian" is a really good fit for the experience and outcome for the individual, and for the process by which an individual found themselves signing.
Either way, I don't think there's any reason to minimise what is happening for the employee, or what it means in terms of characterising the conduct and culture of the ultimate unicorn. If stuff like this is allowed to slide, it's not good.
"My 'we never actually took away people's remuneration using the contracts they signed swearing them to silence' t-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt"
These people have weightier issues like the ethics of the hypothetical technological future on their capacious minds, and mustn't be dragged down to your mucky little level of discussing the ethics of the very real business present.
Seriously: don't bother them with these little questions of the rights of actually enumerable humans to whom they have contractual responsibilities! They're busy thinking in great depth about how their product might affect the rights of all the humans they haven't yet sold it to.
One does wonder how the accelerationist ethic conceives of the tradeoff between a hundred future happy fulfilled lives or two hundred permanently indentured serfs.
It doesn't need to be the same article to be a duplicate submission, it just needs to have no significant new information compared to recent submissions that already got a lot of HN attention.
This article is literally just summarizing the Vox article with no new information or insight. And the HN submission for the Vox article had 1784 points and 544 comments.
Wordpress requires at least PHP 7.0... and will complain about it if it's not above 7.4 (which was released in 2019).
So this to me looks like WP is progressing with PHP, just slowly.
Frankly I don't have a massive problem with this.
The speed of Laravel's PHP baseline change may be appropriate for Laravel, because it is git-managed, more easily run in a container etc., but it's absolutely inappropriate for WordPress to chase the edge.
Compared to trying to stay up-to-date with needless Node.js changes and frameworks that get EOL'd as soon as there's something more fun to play with, it's a paradise.
Why don't people build things with a decade of life in mind?
Facebook is not immune to Metcalf's Law. People will log in less when half their friends are not there, meaning fewer ad impressions.
And that's if you assume that falling numbers of people are their only problem, and it's really not that.