Apparently it was a decision by mayor Dieter Reiter after excessive lobbying by Microsoft. At roughly the same time, Microsoft moved their German headquarter back to Munich. What a coincidence...

That's definitely not an option for me :-D

True open LLMs could be a viable solution in the future, but only if they can be operated and sustained on a community basis. I have too little insights into the actual costs of running such models to judge whether this would be feasible. Then there is always the problem of how to deal with bad actors. This is all but trivial.

At the moment, I'd rather spend time working on sharpening my actual programming and thinking skills :) I actually enjoy the act of programming and see it as part of my creative expression. Fortunately, I don't code for a living (at least not directly), so nobody can tell me how to write my software.

They absolutely have not! What are you talking about?

Also, I thought Iran nuclear program has already been "obliterated" last year?

My parents told me story about their trip to the US. They went on a boat tour in Miami and when the boat passed the homes of some rich people, the tour guide proudly announced the price of each building. The US tourists on the bus applauded! My parents were shocked.

If you author something, you have the sole copyright. In fact, in Germany you can't even waive your copyright away. However, you can grant licenses for the use of your work.

The difference between copyright and licenses is crucial! By licensing your work, you do not waive your copyright. You still remain the owner. If you publish your code under the GPL and you are the sole author, you can always relicense your code or issue commercial licenses under different terms.

> In general, it is kind of weird to want to copyright code. How do you patent a for-loop for example

There is a fundamental difference between copyright and patents! Patents require a novel technical contribution and they must be granted by a patent office.

> but so is most code in general.

That's definitely not true. All the code I write has my copyright, unless I waive that right to some other entity. If there was no copyright, there would no licensing. How else could you license your code, if you were not the copyright holder?

Have you never seen "Copyright (c) 2025" in source code files?

The very fact that your code has your copyright is also the reason for things like CLAs.

> For example, you can buy several movies on DVD and those DVDs will still be your property even though you don't have copyright

That's because artistic works are distributed under a license. Just like software. Licenses have terms under which circumstances a work can be used, modified and (re)distributed. In the case of DVDs, you are generally not allowed to make your own copies and then sell them. In the case of software, that's why you have the various software licenses (proprietory or open-source).

> Similarly, just because the code is AI-generated/not copyrightable, doesn't mean others can just steal it.

You can't set licensing terms for something that is not copyrightable.

The whole thing is a legal mess. How do you know the LLM did not reproduce existing code? There is an ongoing legal battle in German between GEMA and OpenAI because ChatGPT reproduced parts of existing song lyrics. A court in Munich has found that this violates German copyright law.

IANAL so I appreciate any legal experts to correct me here. In my understanding, there have been court decisions that LLM output itself is not copyrightable. You can only claim authorship (and therefore copyright) if you have significantly transformed the output.

If you are truely vibing coding to the point where you don't even look at the generated code, how exactly are you transforming the LLM output?

Also, what if the LLM reproduces existing copyrighted code? There has been a court decision last year in Germany that says that OpenAI violates German copyright law because ChatGPT may recreate existing song lyrics (that are licensed by GEMA) or create very similar variations.

I wanted to mention this because boost::unordered_flat_map and boost::unordered_flat_set are among the fastest open addressing hash containers in C++ land. Internally, they use lots of cool SIMD tricks. If anyone is interested in the details, here's a nice blog post by the developer: https://bannalia.blogspot.com/2022/11/inside-boostunorderedf...

Finally, it certainly helps to have a standardized mechanisms instead of everyone rolling their own, especially with multiple libraries.

What if there's more than one socket involved?

In a coroutine everything can just live on the stack because the stack frame itself is kept alive across the asynchronous function calls.

Don't you see the big difference regarding lifetime management?

> The main thing is that obviously, you have to worry about the capture lifetime yourself

This is a big deal! The fact that the coroutine frame is kept alive and your state can just stay in local variables is one of the main selling points. I experienced this first-hand when I rewrote callback-style C++ ASIO code to the new coroutine style. No more [self=shared_from_this()] and other shenanigans!