I recommend not indicating you're rewording another commenter when you actually disagree with them if you don't want that difference in content pointed out. I note that you've trimmed out the parts of my comment that made it clear I was drawing that distinction. Maybe you missed those?

Separately, though, it's not accurate to call this "papering over [a] bug". Wanting to have a thing that behaves like a reference that can identify things that aren't addressable directly (ie: having custom reference representations) shows up in a surprising number of places as desirable because we use references (and things like references) as an abstraction in many programming languages to enable nicer, more usable syntax (ie: having assignments behave in a particular way).

Edit: and changing the language would have been at the time that std::vector was designed (ie: c++98-ish c++ has a real problem with abstracting over not-really-references). With current c++, we can get a reference-like-object much closer to being fully transparent (`auto&&`, ranges iterator model, etc). But std::vector regrets reflect the constraints of the time when it was initially designed/standardized. C++ doesn't have a good story for making breaking changes, so if folks want a good vector for bits, today they'll go elsewhere.

> Yes, it is like they think they get copyright/IP over someone else's content that they had no part in producing, just syndicating without any license.

Here's what you said:

> You do realize that US IP law does work that way, right? You can have a copyright of a collection of facts even if you don't have a copyright of each individual fact in the collection.

Here's where you've gone wrong in those original comments:

- The original poster is talking about copyright-able works (in the context of this thread, those are websites).

- We're eliding "websites" into "facts" somehow - and as I've said, facts aren't copyrightable (https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102) - and collections of facts (which are only have copyright over creative portions)

- And your first sentence is misleading as the poster is talking about the content of websites being treated as copyrighted by the collector, so we're already off track with the implication that the "fact" (website) is copyrighted when it's part of a database by the database constructor.

- I then proceeded to talk about how collections of facts interact here (ie: 'even supposing if' websites were somehow facts, which they generally aren't under copyright law).

- That's where the "only the creative parts of the database are copyright-able" (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/340/, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/...) comes in. And again, refer back to the original comment, which is about the websites themselves, so we're kind of off track talking about creative parts of databases, but it is somewhat relevant due to comments further up talking mentioning the "relevance scores, or rankings" as something that the agreement prevents using freely. Those "relevance scores, or rankings" might be protected by copyright, though I suspect it would be a close call.

- Making a database of all websites is not creative (see the Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) linked above, where a database of all phone numbers was determined to not be creative in itself). If the results of a particular search (ie: which results correspond to a particular search) are copyrighted hasn't been fully litigated, but Google themselves didn't claim their search results were copyrighted in the ongoing Google LLC v. SerpApi, LLC (4:25-cv-10826) litigation (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46..., III. B. 1 has a discussion).

Now to the most recent comment:

> Here's mine[1], stating that yes databases do get some copyright protection from the collection layer to the extent that some creative addition happens.

You haven't distinguished it from my previous comment with a statement on what is copyrightable in collections of facts. If you believe that non-creative parts of collections are copyrightable, then examine the references above in this comment, and the section in what you've linked titled "Feist: Originality and Creativity". If you don't believe that, then you may want to be more clear.

But that's it.

And then you can remount `/` as read-write, and create a new blessed snapshot with your changes made to it.

This doesn't actually delete the signed snapshot though, so the space consumed by `/System/Applications/Chess` still is consumed. I'm not sure if MacOS will allow deleting the final sealed snapshot for `/`. It might, I don't know that anyone is clamoring for it though.

but yes: that ui in the article is likely entirely imaginary, but it's likely an option (either in the ui for private beta users or by raising a support ticket or by some internal tool) to get sha256 repos today.

The distinction for goose is that it has fixed locations where the free must occur (function return, effectively), not that it doesn't have dynamic allocation (because it does have dynamic allocation)

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/backup-file.html

ie: the corporation wants the AI to behave a certain way for various reasons: to make it easier for them to avoid regulation, to make the corporation more money via different tiers of AI offerings, to ensure that the corporations products are hard for competitors to use, etc. And those are just the easy ones.

Every product is shaped this way. AI is not different.

If those don't exist, I hope folks recognize how useful they are and add them.

And maybe we'll get web bluetooth too.

I was unable to load it initially (got an error from firefox) and had to re-attempt. Still slow if one forces a reload (shift-r, etc, to not use local cache).

It's a mechanism to try to make the 900Mhz band more useful to uncoordinated users.