Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub-Next

githubnext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 119 posts

Re: GitHub-Next

#61

Post by tingletech »

chrismorgan wrote: post #45
capableweb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long time ago I read/skimmed the specification, but I think the DOCTYPE preamble is the only _required_ element in a HTML5 document. The specification allows you to omit if it's empty, and if that's allowed, then it should be allowed to not having any elements as well. Edit with details from https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/document-metad... > Note: The title element is a required child in most situation…

It’s not that you’re allowed to omit the head element (you’re not, and you can’t), but that its start and end tags are optional. Same with the html and body elements. (These remarks apply to HTML syntax only; in XML syntax, which is certainly still a thing, you can (if you care not for validity) omit whatever elements you choose to, only needing some root element.) As far as sources are concerned, the HTML spec is ma…

convo was about HTML 5 specifically (the W3C version). I've never heard HTML WHATWG called HTML 5.

Re: GitHub-Next

#62

Post by tingletech »

Aeolun wrote: post #55
chrismorgan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that you’re allowed to omit the head element (you’re not, and you can’t), but that its start and end tags are optional. Same with the html and body elements. (These remarks apply to HTML syntax only; in XML syntax, which is certainly still a thing, you can (if you care not for validity) omit whatever elements you choose to, only needing some root element.) As far as sources are concerned, the HTML spec is ma…

> It’s not that you’re allowed to omit the head element (you’re not, and you can’t), but that its start and end tags are optional. That’s like calling a cheese sandwich without any cheese a cheese sandwich.

I think they are saying HTML implies the for you - the is still required.

Re: GitHub-Next

#63

Post by debugnik »

chrismorgan wrote: post #46
debugnik wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the head element section mentioned: > If the document is an iframe srcdoc document or if title information is available from a higher-level protocol: Zero or more elements of metadata content, of which no more than one is a title element […]. > Otherwise: One or more elements of metadata content, of which exactly one is a title element […]. So it is required, not just suggested, for a web page, but not for all k…

> I didn't mention the doctype because I believe it isn't strictly speaking an element, just a preamble, but you're right, it's required as well. Funny thing, when I read “the only mandatory element in a valid HTML5 document”, I interpreted “element” in its generic English sense (piece, thing) rather than its HTML sense (node of type element, as distinct from text/comment/doctype/other-types-only-found-in-XML-syntax…

True, I guess I would too if I were a native English speaker. Even when the words are almost identical in my language, I read them as programming jargon before plain English.

Re: GitHub-Next

#64

Post by searchableguy »

jacquesm wrote: post #58
searchableguy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Other parties doing is no excuse imo It is. Laws are adapted based on widespread technological capabilities and progress. As an example, if it is easy to create real voice or signature using AI models - they should no longer be considered effective evidence for contractual reason instead of enforcing that it is illegal to forge it. That is not going to work. Past shouldn't dictate what we allow tomorrow.

Sorry, but that's not how the law works. Try that excuse the next time you're stopped for speeding and see how well it works.

Your example is not good. Speeding is not a technical innovation that require any fundamental change. It is enforced in automated fashion and it is beneficial for the safety of public at large if reasonably implemented.

All laws are made in interest of someone.

Does the copyright apply to AI models since they are out of scope and weren't widespread when it came into force?

Does the proposed benefit in the original law apply in practice?

Are they more beneficial than the progress allowed by AI models who use them as training data?

Is the copyright law practically enforceable on output generated by AI models?

Re: GitHub-Next

#65

Post by jacquesm »

searchableguy wrote: post #64
jacquesm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but that's not how the law works. Try that excuse the next time you're stopped for speeding and see how well it works.

Your example is not good. Speeding is not a technical innovation that require any fundamental change. It is enforced in automated fashion and it is beneficial for the safety of public at large if reasonably implemented. All laws are made in interest of someone. Does the copyright apply to AI models since they are out of scope and weren't widespread when it came into force? Does the proposed benefit in the original la…

Copyright law is what it is today. Like it or not doesn't really matter. And yes, copyright law is practically enforceable, regardless of how copyright is broken. That's what the Berne Convention is all about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention

Copyright is what FOSS depends on. For Microsoft to shit all over GitHub contributors rights is despicable.

Re: GitHub-Next

#66

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

ziml77 wrote: post #18
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not train it on copyright material also? whats the prima-facie reason for not doing so? i mean if you are doing "all public repos", why not everything else?

They did train it on copyrighted work. The GPL is a license for copyrighted work. If it wasn't copyrighted, a license would be useless. The code being covered by copyright and the code being publicly accessible are two different things.

you know what i mean... i am talking about training it on windows OS code and adobe photoshop source code and other "proprietary software" code

Re: GitHub-Next

#67

Post by carapace »

Will they be innovating in ways that we get to use for free? Or are they creating new ways to get in-between the coder and the machine? E.g. Copilot is a paid subscription.

By enabling increased complexity (via Language Server Protocol, Copilot, and even GitHub itself) devs get locked-in to the MS ecosystem. It reminds me of Braess's paradox ("adding one or more roads to a road network can slow down overall traffic flow through it" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox ).

Increasing our ability to generate (but not comprehend) complex systems is also intrinsically dangerous (beyond the "rent seeking" of MS) because complexity itself is a kind of cost or overhead. This is not to say that the more complex system cannot result in efficiency gains that outweigh the cost to maintain that complexity. (If that were true there would be no multicellular life, eh?) It means complexity should be carefully justified in terms of economic/engineering considerations.

Re: GitHub-Next

#68

Post by tpmoney »

jacquesm wrote: post #57
temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should absolutely be litigated to stop the blatant laundering of copyright under the guise of fair use. Copilot's API is surfacing snippets of work without licensing information attached alongside. It can be shown in discovery that Copilot does access the origin work. The sooner this is slapped down, the sooner we can avoid addressing the even more troubling question that exists today: is someone who used Copilo…

It's not complex at all: if you use Copilot to generate code for you you are engaging in copyright infringement. That you got the code from and entity that stole it somewhere else doesn't really matter. Generative models should respect copyright for their sources, and using a generative model to create new works that you intend to claim copyright on is stupid: someone may well show up one day with ironclad proof that…

A reminder that copyright infringement vs fair use is in part dependent on the amount of the copyrighted material that’s being used, the nature of that use and the transformativeness of the infringing work. Just because co-pilot suggests code snippets that can be found in a copyrighted work does not mean that the resulting produced product is in fact an infringement of that copyright.

Also a reminder that outside the copilot debate, the online rights movement has largely been pushing for scraping, deep linking and transforming scrapped data to not be considered copyright infringement, regardless of any TOS on the site being scraped.

To me, co pilot is a exactly that, a scraper that has scraped public websites and is now presenting me the scraped data in an alternative and often transformed form. It’s my responsibility as a developer to ensure that my released product complies with applicable copyright law, but copilot and the use thereof is not in and of itself copyright infringement.

That a tool can be used to create infringing work or infringe on copyright in general is no more a valid argument against co pilot than it is against CD burners, de-drm tools, vcrs, kodi or plex, scanners or any number of day to day items that have the ability to infringe copyright if the user uses it for that purpose.

Re: GitHub-Next

#69

Post by IshKebab »

brockrockman wrote: post #49

Does githubnext.com read as a phishing-adjacent third party to anyone else? Why not deploy as next.github.com subdomain?

This happens all the time because setting up an entirely new domain yourself is way less work than asking the internal IT team to set up a subdomain for you. If the GitHub IT team is reading this then yes, that means you failed.

Re: GitHub-Next

#70

Post by oogali »

brockrockman wrote: post #49

Does githubnext.com read as a phishing-adjacent third party to anyone else? Why not deploy as next.github.com subdomain?

Likely for a security-driven reason: it’s primarily a marketing site that shouldn’t have access to the .github.com cookie space.
Post reply on HN