Not exactly,

They said that they APIs were copyrighted, and that the way that Google had reimplemented the API fell under fair use doctrine (the original work was still copyrighted and they were allowed to use it without authorization).

As for using an LLM to reimplement a program, you're going to end up with a derivative work which can only be created/authorized by the original copyright holder. If you don't have the authorization, you are infringing on someone else's copyright.

If however, you used an LLM to read a program's source code, sort each word alphabetically then output the result, you're going to have something that while based on an original copyrighted work no longer functions as a program. It has been transformed to such a degree that it is considered a transformative work, and thus falls under the fair use doctrine.

TL;DR: Simply getting an LLM to regurgitate source code back out to you does not remove the licence of the original source.

What's with all the complaints here?

New users expect middle click to bring up an auto-scroll widget instead of pasting by default.

You can set up your computer how ever you want.

Want auto-scroll? Set it to auto-scroll.

Want paste? Set it to paste.

The first thing you do on a new system is set up the computer how you want.

No one's taking anything away from you.

Serious question for anyone who actually uses Bun:

Why are you using Bun instead of Deno or Node?

If you would have asked me 10 years ago, what were the biggest problems with JS as a whole, I would have stated:

1. Poor type safety

2. No standard library which leads people into dependency hell

3. Poor security (installing a project should not even allow the possibility of key stealing or ransomware)

4. No runtime ergonomic immutable data structures with fast equality checks (looked like it was going to be resolved with the Records and Tuples proposal, but it was withdrawn and discussions are continuing in the composites proposal)

Today I consider point 1 mostly resolved and point 4 a problem for TC39 and engine implementers, and not resolvable by runtimes themselves.

That leaves us with problems 2 and 3.

I see Node having poor solutions for 2 and 3.

I see Bun having poor solutions for 2 and 3.

I see Deno having great solutions for 2 and 3.

As far as I can tell, people have chosen Bun for either hype or speed reasons.

Hype doesn't seem like an important reason to choose Bun since it's always fleeting and there's enough investment in the industry to keep each runtime going for a long time.

I do see speed being a moderate issue with JS, but that's mainly due to:

• dependency install times which should be a one time cost, and which can be reduced anyway by using a standard library

• slow framework slop, which isn't really a runtime issue.

So I'm not sure speed fits as a reason for choosing Bun.

I'm not sure what the other reasons are, but I'm genuinely curious.

If you're using Bun in projects today, why have you chosen bun?

Counterpoint: X11 wasn't designed with today's security needs in mind, and developers were building based on the assumptions that those security holes would remain. We don't actually want everything that X11 had, we only want the good bits.

Or to put it another way, the switch from X11 to Wayland = https://xkcd.com/1172/

I don't see any actual temper lost here.

In one case he points out that someone is making commits that have messed up a file's indentation, and to stop doing that because it's messing things up (they were).

In the other case he points out that rust's default format rules are wrong (in the context of version control readability, they are) and asks someone to fix them.

The future is ~~webp~~ JPEG XL...

And telling software patents to burn in hell.

There are only two genders...

Except for: <giant list of genetic, epigenetic, developmental, etc... things that happen with human beings>.

Not to mention all the other things that happen with other living things

That's 41 degrees for everyone who doesn't measure things in bird per gun.

What to know about blue supermoons:

1. They literally mean nothing.
2. The change is imperceptible to everyone.
3. Expect useless clickbait slop about it until it passes.

There's a reason Teams is/was shit.

The first teams was written in AngularJS (which is a slow to run resource hog, but fast to develop) wrapped in Electron. It was kind of a minimum viable product, just to build something quickly to get some feedback and stats on what people needed.

The plan was to build a new native version of teams and build it into the next windows while having an web fallback (built on react) for everyone else.

They stopped working on the original teams and started working on the new versions.

They got half-way through working on the native and react versions when suddenly, covid happened.

They couldn't keep working on the new versions because they wouldn't be ready for a while, so they had to go back and resume development on the old one, introducing patch after patch to quickly get more features in there (like more than 2 webcam streams per call).

Eventually covid subsided and they were able to resume development on the new teams versions.

Windows 11 launched with a native teams version (which has less features but runs super quick), and the new react based teams (which can now be downloaded in a webview2 wrapper) has been in open beta since late last year (if you've seen the "Try the new Teams" toggle, then you've seen this). The React+Webview2 teams will replace the AngularJS+Electron version as the default on July 7th.

Github has always had being a job site be it's secondary feature.

Except that it has a slightly higher bar of entry to recruiters and recruitment bots spreading toxic positivity, and anyone asking for a job is able to prove (at least some of) their value by showing off their code and how they participate publically in other repos (if at all).

cURL was one of these for a while (according to my limited understanding)

It was made in the 90s and it didn't get commercial support until a few years ago.