The most interesting part of this article to me was the end, where the author argues about how important High School Debate is and how Kritiks are the ruin of this important tradition. I was a HS debator in the early 90s, before K's were popular, and from my experience debate was already a fun but ultimately harmful activity. The whole idea was to spew a constant stream of arguments that didn't have any merit as quickly as possible, hoping the opposing team would forget to respond to just one out of 100, and then you win.
HS Debate already trained a generation of win-at-all-costs, who cares if you are right folks like Karl Rove. I don't see how the current generation of kritik based debate could possibly be any worse
I should not have to opt out. GitHub should have to respect my license. I already said they can use my code, as long as they keep an attribution intact (via a BSD license, for example)
GitHub is taking my code and ignoring the license. I don’t understand why anyone would think that is ok.
No, you're ignoring what you agreed to when you accepted the terms of service. GitHub can display your code, and YOU granted them that license by accepting their terms.
I find the only people making these OSS claims haven't used copilot and tend to lack any real contributions to OSS. What you're describing is just simply not the case for 99.9 percent of the code snippets being produced/generated based on data from GitHub.
I actually care more about putting code into peoples hands versus someone copying a license file, that's probably why I use the unlicense... "Because you have more important things to do than enriching lawyers or imposing petty restrictions on users"
I have used Copilot in its free phase, and have made substantial OSS contributions to various projects as well as shepherding my own projects (a few of which have attained a degree of success). Building an AI model off the community's code and selling the model (and code generated by rearranging statements and patterns found in the training data) back to the community is odious.
Not everyone who has code at GitHub uploaded it personally. Plenty of code was written before GitHub even existed and that code is still uploaded there.
That’s what fair use doctrine is about. Copyright doesn’t say “you can’t do anything without permission”, it says “you can’t do anything without permission, except for a few categories of things which cannot be forbidden”, and Copilot claims that what they’re doing fits in one of those categories.
FIFA hasn't done anything like this, have they? Only thing I can remember recently is when Shaqiri and Xhaka had political celebrations after a World Cup game, and they both escaped punishment:
Even then, the potential punishment was a 2-match ban. They wouldn't have stripped Switzerland of the victory,banned them for a year, and taken away all the money they earned throughout the entire season (all things that Blizzard did)
Isn't there a fairly toxic political question buried in this paper as well? Who is going to decide which behaviors are rent-seeking and which are productive?
Yes, if pundits and lobbyists abuse this paper by relying on it to expound policies that it can't actually support. (Maybe they already have?) But that's a more general problem with how our political culture permits politicians and pundits to abuse science in their rhetoric.
There's also a problem in academia where intense pressures to publish and to be cited incentivize researchers to make radical claims, exaggerate the practical utility of their findings, gloss over weak points, etc, ripe for political fodder. I won't claim to understand all the technical details in the paper but I didn't sense any of that in the paper. The authors seemed to establish a fair analytical context, and they plainly articulated a limited policy conclusion--"it doesnotnecessarilyimply that taxes should be more steeply progressive". (Emphasis added.) Those don't feel like weasel words; just true and straight-forward without inviting misinterpretation.
It's a cool paper that credibly does what it sets out to: explore what can happen (in a formal and fair but, clearly, limited model) when you give rent-seeking a first-class treatment and carefully analyze how it interplays with the rest of the system.
By contrast, Arthur Laffer very actively advertised his research as justifying policies that it simply could not. And he continues to do it--he actively promoted the 2017 tax cut using the same intentionally misleading arguments he always has.
The Naked Capitalism “analysis” never broke down how much Uber spends opening new markets vs. it’s costs in mature markets. Their conclusions are totally farcical.
> They weren't buying it for portability, like Japanese customers usually did; they were buying it because it was the cheapest way to play videogames
That's not true, they are buying a 3ds so they can play Pokemon. Without Pokemon every kid I know would rather have an iphone/ipad than a 3ds. (I'm talking about Pokemon Omega Ruby style games, not Pokemon Go).
They've sold 63.3 million 3DS units (counting the 2DS) and 14.7 million copies of Pokemon X & Y, the bestselling Pokemon game on the platform. So while it's undoubtedly a very popular game I don't think you can rank it above cost as the reason so many people were buying handhelds to use at home.
You aren't gonna to need it[1]
Do the simplest thing that can possibly work[2]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it 2. https://www.ronjeffries.com/xprog/articles/practices/pracsim...