The difficult in naming things is that you're trying to encode semantics and an interface contract in a name. If you give up doing that, it's easy.
For example, say you have getFoo(). It's clear it gets the foo. But later you introduce getFooAsync(). Suddenly it's no longer clear whether getFoo() is sync or async, because you didn't call it getFooSync().
If instead you used names like getFoo1, getFoo2, getFoo3, etc., the semantics you're providing is that there are multiple "ways" to getFoo without making promises (a contract) about what the function actually does in its name.
Although this sounds like bad naming practices (it is), it effectively solves the naming problem. Apply this to CSS, and instead of .red-button or .secondary-button, you get .button1, .button2, .button3, and you just don't have to think about WHY are you creating a button to give it a class and start styling it.
Yep, that sort of thing happens constantly. Things get misleading names because the first three alternatives I came up with were also misleading. So I agree, and indeed I considered a foo bar baz scheme instead of icons, same difference. Then you have to look somewhere else for what the thing does. Self-documenting code doesn't really work, and strict naming schemes are long-winded and worse than ad-libbing it, so it would have to be comments, but then the comments get forgotten and no longer reflect the code. I give up, might take up woodwork instead.
The reason why there's churn in the web ecosystem isn't because Javascript is missing some minor syntax changes that Python has. It's because UI development is a constant workshop for discovering better abstractions, particularly in bridging the gap between server and client-side code in the browser.
Personally, I think the real problem with the web ecosystem is HTML. HTML is for printed documents as web "pages," literally. It even has <figure> which is for "fig. 1" kind of things.
HTML is so bad that we NEED Javascript because CSS isn't enough. For example, there is no way to define a layout in HTML for different screen sizes and then SEPARATELY define the content of that layout. Nor is there a way to define in HTML that a div should jump from one part of the screen to another if there isn't enough space. We spent years telling the lie that we're supposed to split semantics and presentation, but in reality CSS simply doesn't provide enough power to actually ignore the structure, since you can't tell div1 to align itself to div2 if div2 isn't an ancestor or sibling of div1. Now every website looks extremely simple because if they made it even a tiny bit more complicated it would be impossible to make the flexboxes wrap right with just CSS.
Well, we "need" Javascript because it provides programming capabilities that HTML, being a markup language, cannot provide on its own. HTML is just the substrate for representing the UI.
All you would be doing is creating another programming language while taking another swing at coming up with yet another abstraction for UI dev like everyone before you.
Not really HTML2. Almost all current UI engines uses an xml variant, and they have a much lower number of components and a simpler foundation. And they provide you with a easy-to-use 2d context when you need to do custom components. What we need are better primitives for web applications. And separated from the web as documents.
data-star isn't a successor to htmx, it's a pretty different take on hypermedia, using SSE for a streaming, dynamic hypermedia driven system. cool, definitely capable, but significantly different
htmx generalizes hypermedia controls, and that's all it will do, forever
Funnily enough, one of my pet peeves is how many articles you see around, perhaps written for "SEO," that always end in a "conclusion," as if the author was still writing in the same essay format they were required in school. Reviews, listicles, etc. Always ending with "conclusion" as if that was mandatory.
This was actually part of the 5th grade lesson: "Eventually, you will be able to move past this format. Your writing will improve beyond it. But you won't know when to break the rules until you know how to write within the rules, so for now, follow the rules."
You infected him with a mind virus. He's going to tell about that message to other people, who will tell about it to others. Before you know it, it's gone viral.
I won't necessarily argue against that moral view, but in this case it is two large corporations fighting. One has the power of tech, the other has the power of the state (copyright). So I don't think that applies in this case specifically.
Aren't you ignoring that common law is built on precedent? If they win this case, that makes it a lot easier for people who's copyright is being infringed on an individual level to get justice.
You're correct, but I think many don't realize how many small model trainers and fine-tuners there are currently. For example, PonyXL, or the many models and fine-tunes on CivitAI made by hobbyists.
So basically the reasoning is this:
- NYT vs OpenAI, neither is disenfranchied
- OpenAI vs individual creators, creators are disenfranchised
- NYT vs individual model trainers, model trainers are disenfranchised
- Individual model trainers vs individual creators, neither are disenfranchised
And if only one can win, and since the view is that information should be free, it biases the argument towards the model trainers.
What "information" are you talking about? It's a text and image generator.
Your argument is that it's okay to scrape content when you are an individual. It doesn't change the fact those individuals are people with technical expertise using it to exploit people without.
If they wrote a bot to annoy people but published how many people got angry about it, would you say it's okay because that is information?
> If they wrote a bot to annoy people but published how many people got angry about it, would you say it's okay because that is information?
Kind of? It's not okay, but not because it is usage of information without consent (this is the "information should free" part), but because it is intentionally and unnecessarily annoying and angering people (this is the "don't use the information for evil" part which I think is your position).
"See? Similarly, even in your view, model trainers aren't bad because they're using data. They're bad in general because they're exploiting creatives."
But why is it exploitative?
"They're putting the creatives out of a job." But this applies to automation in general.
"They're putting creatives out of a job, using data they created." This is the strongest argument for me. It does intuitively feel exploitative. However, there are several issues:
1. Not all models or datasets do that. For instance, no one is visibly getting paid to write comments on HN, or to write fanfics on the non-commercial fanfic site AO3. Since the data creators are not doing it as a job in the first place, it does not make sense to talk about them losing their job because of the very same data.
2. Not all models or datasets do that. For example, spam filters, AI classifiers. All of this can be trained from the entire Internet and not be exploitative because there is no job replacement involved here.
3. Some models already do that, and are already well and morally accepted. For example, Google Translate.
4. This may be resolved by going the other way and making more models open source (or even leaks), so more creatives can use it freely, so they can make use of the productive power.
"Because they're using creatives' information without consent." But as mentioned, it's not about the information or consent. It's about what you do with the information.
Finally, because this is a legal case, it's also important to talk about the morality of using the state to restrict people from using information freely, even if their use of the information is morally wrong.
If you believe in free culture as in free speech, then it is wrong to restrict such a use using the law, even though we might agree it is morally wrong. But this really depends if you believe in free culture as in free speech in the first place, which is a debate much larger than this.
Show me an actual person whose livelihood or retirement depends on their copyright (and not, say, owning somebody else's copyright). I'm not convinced that the current state of copyright law actually benefits authors and artists.
Nearly all fiction authors own the copyrights to their books. They have an agreement with publisher to publish it and they get the royalties. If that agreement ends, they can find a new publishers. The authors get an advance and if book is popular enough, they get royalties.
Any semi-famous author would do, no? Famous authors everyone's heard of are probably rich enough that they have other investments via money they earned from their copyrights, but arguably that's still a living derived from their owning of copyright. So let's start with hearing why,
say, Stephen King, Charlie Stross, and J. K. Rowling aren't actual people who's living (sizable as it may be) doesn't depend on their copyright on the books they wrote, before we look for any lesser known authors. Taylor Swift makes a living off her music, which is dependent on copyright. Or have I missed something somewhere?
> The 12-time Grammy Award winner made more than $780 million on the U.S. leg of the Eras Tour, according to an estimate by Forbes. The total ticket sales from Swift's 2023 Eras Tour could make her the highest-grossing female touring artist of all time, according to Billboard. The Eras Tour could gross over $1 billion, making concert history as the first billion-dollar tour, according to The Wall Street Journal.
J.K. Rowling doesn't have exclusive rights to her books, past the first couple. Lots of copyright-related suits (most?) are made by Warner Bros. She's fully capable of mobilising her fanbase (or, was, at least, before she went off on the deep end) to prevent or restrict what she considers misuse of the Harry Potter brand. (And, as you say, she doesn't need the money.)
Copyright isn't why Toby Fox need never go hungry. His work is trivial to pirate, he doesn't even bother enforcing copyright on his music; and yet he's probably a millionaire, with more works on the way.
But someone IS suggesting that people lose copyright protections over some of their works, and eventually all of them when they don't have 10 thousand dollars to pay to keep their rights per work after just 20 years.
Being able to play old video games for free is not the point though, it's just a nice side effect of an intellectual property regime with a reasonable duration, say something less than 150 years.
With the people that understand that reality isn’t as black and white as you make it out to be and that will hopefully find better compromises going forward.
Reminds me about how many times I've ended up buying the same game I already own, but on another platform because the original is on something I no longer have reasonable access to anymore. (I don't have a television with a RF modulator handy and getting a proper setup working takes more effort than I'm willing to put in at this age.)
There are no residuals for game devs. It's work for hire, so holding on to this idea that they will get paid money for every sale (even after it's no longer sold - but maybe somehow once these assholes "resurrect" a game they never bothered to bring back after 30 years, will somehow benefit the actual people who made it is a joke). This has nothing to do "their livelihood and retirement"It's about protecting corporate profits in the very slim case they may discover that bringing something back (ha sure) will benefit the corporation that OWNS the rights.
IP isn't the same across the board it's not like game devs are singers who have ASCAP/BMI etc protections. Game devs are code jockeys who get shit on by the corporations with NO rights to the actual work THEY produced. Why do you act like this is the same as music with perpetual rights to the actual creators? It rarely if ever is.
You can go ahead and "blame" the workers you claim to support for failing to "put that in their employment contract, it is a "free market" for labor, after all" or you can work on changing the system to at least let the past be free and open and history have a chance of being important or just let it all be locked in a vault, in disuse in the "hope" that maybe someday a corporation will "release" it again as a game. Or you can let people who ARE passionate about it work on it and let the public have the right to it.
As the parent comments point out, the LITERAL REASON OF COPYRIGHT IN THE US CONSTITUTION is to benefit the public. It has nothing to do with giant corps getting rich as fuck off other people's labor. Contract law gets in the way and lets these pricks steal the work and wealth, deny people the rights and only THEY get the benefit, this is the precise opposite of the public benefit intended.
Culture happens on faster and faster cycles than ever before, yet instead of admitting the speed of it, these behemoths who own IP, demand continual extensions (well until the most recent time when Disney finally relented and let Steamboat Willy enter the Public Domain recently).
Instead of promoting "innovation" (as phrased in the US Constitution), it promotes lethargy slouch and continued re-use of the same things. It's the exact opposite of the intent. And no, this bullshit about "livelihoods and retirement" mean jackshit in game dev. You shit your game out, you got paid for that work, and that's it. All the excess profits go to the corp, not the actual devs. IP in this case is not about humans owning/making, and it's corporations through and through, and unless you held onto the same corporation for 40 years, as the creator, it's not going to be you getting the supposed benefit of this.
>Regnier reportedly went on to say that the commission has asked the EU’s 27 national governments to look for “any trace of Bluesky” like EU-based offices. The regulator hasn’t reached out to Bluesky directly, yet, The Financial Times writes.
It's kind of alarming, not that I'm not guilty of it, but you do see people whose entire online presence is just stuffing their face with negative interactions.
For example, say you have getFoo(). It's clear it gets the foo. But later you introduce getFooAsync(). Suddenly it's no longer clear whether getFoo() is sync or async, because you didn't call it getFooSync().
If instead you used names like getFoo1, getFoo2, getFoo3, etc., the semantics you're providing is that there are multiple "ways" to getFoo without making promises (a contract) about what the function actually does in its name.
Although this sounds like bad naming practices (it is), it effectively solves the naming problem. Apply this to CSS, and instead of .red-button or .secondary-button, you get .button1, .button2, .button3, and you just don't have to think about WHY are you creating a button to give it a class and start styling it.