You're also ignoring the fact that these companies have been shifting things around to make their books look better than they actually are. Here's a good example explaining how META has been keeping debt and lease obligations off its books to fuel growth (and who's at risk if META doesn't pay up):
Many tech companies operate at a loss initially, that is the point of venture markets in firms that invest heavily in R&D, the initial investment will pay off once the technology matures.
As for Meta’s shady accounting, I also inside most tech companies leverage whatever they can to remain competitive in a high growth market. They certainly have the money to get away with it though for now.
The article states it's just a fork, AKA a separate coin that copy/pastes the current Bitcoin ledger. Even if every dev wants this, that is a "hard fork" (not backwards compatible), and creates a new version of the coin. Ex: if you want to add a smiley face to some Bitcoin log output, you 1) make the change, and 2) nothing happens until 3) miners agree to use that new version.
Look into "Bitcoin Cash", a near identical coin except it has a larger block size. Completely different token and therefore has 0 effect on Bitcoin.
Might be more illuminating to look at Ethereum Classic.
How’s that doing after the fork led by the central owners of a decentralized blockchain, initiated to reallocate a big pile of money that the devs didn’t think was in the right spot?
Well yea. But so much of the bitcoin/crypto was specifically built on the idea that technology and “decentralized” blockchains were the right and necessary solution to protect us from this kind of centralized human manipulation.
But then you just move the security issue elsewhere with more to secure. Now we have to think about securing the automation system, too.
This is the same argument I routinely have with client id/secret and username/password for SMTP. We're not really solving any major problem here, we're just pretending it's more secure because we're calling it a secret instead of a password.
Secrets tend to be randomly-generated tokens, chosen by the server, whereas passwords tend to be chosen by humans, easier to guess, and reused across different services and vendors.
> Long-lived production SSH keys may be copied around, hardcoded into configuration files, and potentially forgotten about until there is an incident. If you replace long-lived SSH keys with a pattern like EC2 instance connect, SSH keys become temporary credentials that require a recent authentication and authorization check.
Seems like you work in an organization with one developer. It's never just a "small configuration change" when you need to change the workflow and habits of your entire company.
Why? If Sentry gets compromised, it's the exact same outcome—your Jira tickets get mined for production credentials and downloaded for random. What does automated token management save here?
How long the Jira access lasts depends on you / Sentry detecting and solving the initial intrusion. It doesn't matter how long the Jira token itself lasts if the attackers have access to the database in which its stored or log files in which its been dumped or something like that.
This assumes that the intrusion is persistent until Sentry catches it, that Sentry notifies me, that I successfully track all the places I have long-lived tokens that need to be rotated, etc.
If the legal stance is that clean room implementations are not derivative works, even if done using AI, I don’t see how adding a license clause would override that.
You may as well include a clause saying that anyone who reads your license and is inspired to buy an actual ship grants you ownership of that vessel.
If I'm reading the actual court documents correctly:
1. This wasn't an appeal. They had to make their motion to both the federal district court and the circuit court.
2. This was a motion for a temporary stay, not the actual case.
3. The rejection acknowledged the likelihood of economic harm to Anthropic but weighed it against the impact to the DoD. This isn't shocking and is how stays are meant to work: it isn't primarily a test of who is likely to prevail, it's primarily a test of what the risk to both parties is.
Is it?
reply