As far as I can tell, this doesn't change when the actual orbital transfer from earth to mars occurs, it just allows launching outside the normal transfer window and then loitering until the window arrives. In this case, what benefit do they have from launching it now and loitering for a year rather than just launching it a year from now?
Because of the lowered cost of launching on this particular New Glenn. By the time of the next window BO will be able to command more money for a less-risky launch.
'There's so many cliffs around that not jumping off that one barely helps you'.
I meeeeeannn... sure? I know that browser fingerprinting works quite well without, but custom headers are actually a game over in terms of not getting tracked.
And those people who would lose money are the EV manufacturers. AFAIK in the US EV manufacturers are barely making money even with gov’t subsidies (baring Tesla). They can’t charge what would be necessary without subsidies because most people simply wouldn’t want or couldn’t afford such a product at that price point.
I've been looking for a place to talk about this. Seemingly through a potent combination of government subsidies, willingness to embrace the technology, and general STEM competence, China has exploded with quality EV manufacturers. The ICE manufacturers are doomed regardless of what type of car they try to sell.
It makes me wonder about this from a policy perspective. China, more than any other country, has the power to dump products at a net loss to the country for the sake of a long term victory. That's tough to combat.
Hey,
Of course, you can create all this app functionality using Dockutil.
This is the tool that DockFlow uses under the hood. It also supports direct Dock terminal commands for some users for whom Dockutil doesn't work well.
But I think having everything in an easy-to-use UI (including managing spaces, files, and folders in one place) is a much better solution for most users.
This is like running OLLAMA on the terminal or using one of the many UI wrappers out there.
Thank you for the feedback, of course, and I invite you to check DockFlow and see if it gives you a better solution than a bash script
Meta needs to stop open-washing their product. It simply is not open-source. The license for their precompiled binary blob (ie model) should not be considered open-source, and the source code (ie training process / data) isn’t available.
They've painted themselves into a corner - the second people see the announcement that they've enforced the license on someone, people will switch to actual open source licensed models and Meta's reputation will take a hit.
It's ironic that China is acting as a better good faith participant in open source than Meta. I'm sure their stakeholders don't really care right now, but Meta should switch to Apache or MIT. The longer they wait the more invested people will be and the more intense the outrage when things go wrong.
The blob itself isn't, exactly: you cannot just reencode a movie and claim copyright protection over the resulting blob.
What's protected is the content of the movie, and it's protected because it derives from human creativity.
> The copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.”
> […]
> Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.
No, derivative work require human creativity themselves. Compiling or re-encoding still doesn't count.
See : https//www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101
A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
> Which exists as a binary blob.
Nope, for copyright protection it must exist at least as one binary blob, but having multiple binary blobs (with different resolutions) doesn't make it a different copyright piece. It's the underlying creation that is protected, not a particular instance of it. Star Wars, the Empire Strikes Back is what's registered at the Copyright Office, not Star_Wars_The_Empire_Strikes_Back.720p.avi.
> Copying that binary blob requires a license to do so.
Fortunately no, otherwise your internet provider would need a license from the copyright holders to copy the blob from Netflix server to your machine.
One last time: copyright isn't about the blob, it's about the creation stored on it. The process of creating the blob doesn't grant you any copyright protection of you don't own the underlying material.
>No, derivative work require human creativity themselves.
Then it would just be a copy then. Copies need a license.
>Fortunately no, otherwise your internet provider would need a license from the copyright holders to copy the blob from Netflix server to your machine.
No, I believe this is because internet providers do not save the content which means that a copy is not considered to be made. If copies were allowed of binary blobs people could legally make pirate sites sharing copies like that.
> No, I believe this is because internet providers do not save the content which means that a copy is not considered to be made.
Nope, that's not the reason, and that's why you don't need to give a copyright license to Apple before storing your personal pictures to iCloud either, nor does Apple need a license to store copyrighted material you got a license for (like software or paid downloaded movies). Copying a blob isn't a license infringement in itself, because the blob itself was never protected by copyright.
> If copies were allowed of binary blobs people could legally make pirate sites sharing copies like that.
No, because sharing is what you'd get prosecuted for.
Part of me thinks you should really try to start learning the basis of stuff before arguing on the internet about it, but who am I to judge your life choices. I did my best to help you learn something, but if you refuse to there's nothing more I can do.
> You do which is why it's a part of the terms of service for icloud.
404
> Copyright controls both reproduction and distribution.
Reproduction in the copyright sense isn't about blob copying. RAID 1 isn't a copyright infringement either… And neither is a Windows defragmentation (which is just the OS copying files around).
> You are being unnecessarily smug and condescending.
You are needlessly obstinate on a topic you don't understand.
This is actually my first impression while I am reading the post. Mentions "open source" everywhere but dude how the earth it is open source without training data.
Almost no company is going to release training data because they don't want to waste time with lawsuits. That's why it doesn't happen. Until governments fix that issue, I don't even think the "it's not really open without training data!!!" argument is worth any time. It's more worth focusing on the various restrictions in the LLaMA license, or even better, questioning whether model weights can be licensed at all.
What is the point of considering this hypothetical? Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, Apple, and many Chinese big-tech companies also release open weights models, most with fewer restrictions.
My issue with Meta's open-washing is that it is also not open-weight, given the license restrictions. It's "weight-available", I suppose. Try OLMo instead.
Intel has a fab nearby as well which is actually net positive for potable water because they take in waste water and purify it enough that it goes back into the supply after they’re done using it.
> DeepSeek-R1 has been making waves recently by rivaling OpenAI's O1 reasoning model while being fully open-source.
Do we finally have a model with access to the training architecture and training data set, or are we still calling non-reproducible binary blobs without source form open-source?
I assume when people say "open source model" they mean "open weights model". The "open source" term doesn't really make sense here, since machine learning models are not compilations of source code. (Though DeepSeek has published several papers with details on their training process. It's more than just open weights.)
Historically (last two elections) the polls have been about 2% further left than the actual result. Thus a 50/50 could/should b be interpreted in Trump’s favor
