We start to understand those old fogeys who we blew past we were young once we get to their age. It's the way of the world.

If it can't and it costs a bunch of money to clean it up then same as always.

OTOH if what is actually happening is just that it is rewording the existing code so it looks different then it is still going to run afoul of copyright. You can't just rewrite harry potter with different words.

Note that even with Google vs oracle it was important they didn't need the actual code just the headers to get the function calls were enough. Yes it's true that the clean room isn't required but when you have an AI and you can show that it can't do it a second time without looking at the source (not just function declarations) that's pretty strong evidence.

The laws prohibiting tie-ins don't make it illegal to sell two products that work well together. That's literally what the laws are designed to make you do -- seperate products into seperate pieces. The problem tie-in laws were designed to combat was situations like Microsoft making a popular OS then making a mediocre spreadsheet program and pushing the cost of that spreadsheet program into the cost of buying the OS. That way consumers would go "well it's expensive but I get excel with it so it's ok" and even if someone else made a slightly better spreadsheet they didn't have the chance to convince users because they had to buy it all as one package.

Anthropic would be doing something much closer to that if they did what you wanted. They'd be saying: hey we have this neat Claude code thing you all want to use but you can't buy that without also purchasing third party access. Now some company offering a cheaper/better third party usage product doesn't get the chance to convince you because anthropic forced you to buy that just to get claude code.

Ultimately this change unbundled products the opposite of a tie-in. What is upsetting about it is that it no longer feels to you like you are getting a good deal because you now have to fork over a bunch more cash to keep getting what you want. But that's not illegal, that's just not offering good value for money.

But it's not fundamentally any different than what we do with the natural numbers. Those just feel more familiar to you.

That's a really tough problem. I'm not even sure yet google can pull it off.

If you get clever and write a client to ensure sensitive data like passwords or email are sent in a burst you could just use an encryption library just for that data instead.

Sure, if it's an internal tool you can recompile both ends and force a universal update. But anything else and you need to stay compatible with clients and anytime you allow negotiation of the cryptosuit you open yourself up to quite a few subtle attacks. Not saying that choice about go is clearly a good one but i don't think it's obviously wrong.

Amazon is essentially a logistics company with a search engine. It doesn't really make sense to have them enforce regulations or counterfeiting rules than it would to make UPS and google. It's not like they hide who the seller is on any item (it's listed as sold by).

What your complaining about is a fundamental consequence of anything that lowers the barriers to selling goods. You once needed to buy a storefront to sell retail goods, later you at least needed sufficient name recognition for people to visit your website -- that investment gave anyone whose goods were counterfeit as well as regulators assets to seize.

But just like making it easy for every citizen to publish their thoughts means we see lots of hate and dumb shit online -- anything that lowers the barriers to selling retail goods (in general a good thing) will make it easy to sell counterfeit or defective crap.

In the long run, I suspect tech will make reputable 3rd party evaluations easier to access but let's not blame Amazon for not becoming an arm of the state and judging what is and isn't legal.

Though it's technically a bit different than the halting problem as this issue remains even if you assume that the function terminates -- you only want to show that the reference is returned assuming the code terminates if it isn't returned because it enters an infinite loop that's not a leak.

1) You think this state is impossible but you've made a mistake. In this case you want to make the problem as simple to reason about as possible. Sometimes types can help but other times it adds complexity when you need to force it to fit with the type system.

People get too enamored with the fact that immutable objects or certain kinds of types are easier to reason about other things being equal and miss the fact that the same logic can be expressed in any Turing complete language so these tools only result in a net reduction in complexity if they are a good conceptual match to the problem domain.

2) You are genuinely worried about the compiler or CPU not honoring it's theoretical guarantees -- in this case rewriting it only helps if you trust the code compiling those cases more for some reason.

I'm honestly unsure of the theoretical reason neural nets are so effective at language processing. But it certainly requires some characterization of the problem space (e.g. problems where the function to be learned has such and such property) since there are plenty of mathematical techniques for approximating well-behaved continuous functions with certain features that way outperform neural nets at learning various classes of mathematically nice functions..

The document acknowledges this but basically leaves it to other aspects of the network stack to defend against this (maybe there is some extra protection provided by the ICV check). Google's stack seems carefully designed to be secure in this way but it feels brittle.

Wouldn't it have been better to require a checksum of some of the exterior headers (source IP??) inside the encrypted section to block attempts to repackage the same encrypted content inside another packet. Or is that somewhere in there and I'm missing it?