If that is the only issue, any initial CUDA patents will be expiring now

Parents can be amended to extend their lifetimes, and I’m sure Nvidia uses all the tools they can to better enforce their moat.

That fact appears to be mentioned in the docs for this sudo, as well as mentioning gsudo has more features

That’s because the parent claim is known as the hygiene hypothesis and has been disproven by science, in common with anti vaccine claims. The immune system has not been shown to benefit from training, but has been shown to be damaged by illness.

I'm not sure how you would disprove the hygiene hypothesis, because it is a really weak claim and rejecting weak claims is really difficult.

The anti vaccine position makes a very strong claim, namely that vaccines will cause complications that are strong enough to justify not vaccinating children, which is obviously false since a lot of the diseases that are vaccinated against have actually killed children and the vaccines have dropped child mortality significantly and the complications that are supposed to be avoided by refraining from vaccines tend to be both rare and non life threatening.

You can't make the same argument with the hygiene hypothesis, because the claim is really weak. Nobody is saying that extreme hygiene will kill you. The argument is along the lines of "lack of exposure to environmental microbes, viruses or allergens may lead to an unprepared immune system that hasn't developed a wide variety of anti bodies or is more likely to develop allergies or autoimmune problems".

I'm not sure how I would be able to argue against this claim since it only takes one microbe, virus or allergen to make it true.

The context here isn't hand washing vs not hand washing, it's aggressive ozone + UV sterilisation vs regular hygiene.

Not to mention that the hygiene hypothesis has an even weaker version still, namely the "old friends hypothesis". It seems pretty weird to equivocate this to being against vaccines.

Maybe you should qualify 'anti-vaccine claims'. Throughout the history of vaccines which have saved countless lives, some people have died or suffered severe reactions linked to a vaccine. This is hardly surprising given our metabolic heterogeneity.

'Anti-vaccine claims' suggests a taking of sides on that knee-jerk division into those who claim without evidence that almost or even all vaccines are deadly and on the other hand, those who are frankly contemptuous of any claim that a particular vaccine (evident particularly with the vaccines developed in response to the Covid outbreak) might be dangerous for certain people. Both extreme views have been on view recently and are indefensible.

The major issue here is the difficult task of identifying people likely to react badly to any specific vaccine.

Meanwhile 'Congress and Institute of Medicine Confirm Government Licensed and Recommended Vaccines Can Cause Injury and Death' and 'The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Act was the first U.S. law to officially acknowledge that childhood vaccines licensed and recommended by the federal government, which are routinely mandated for school attendance by state governments, can and do injure and kill a minority of children.'

Let's not be pedantic. Its quite obvious to anyone not living under a rock what "anti-vaccine" means.

Here you go: https://www.kegoutlet.com/carbonating-kits.html

Hmm... Those steel growlers look appealing, if a little pricey, but their 45 psi relief valves would prevent carbonating with as much fizz as I like. I wonder if the PRV could be swapped with a different one that holds more like 75 psi.

Thanks for the link. This gives me a direction worth investigating, at least.

Ask on the site, the company was responsive to my questions. I’d be curious to know also, as I usually run right at the limit (about 40psi to account for temperature changes. Fridge water cold holds much more gas than just tap water cold, particularly in summer

In the proposed game above, there is no rounds, just alternating plays, in which you have to select you play before the other player announces their play, then swap and repeat

So both players select their cards, then player 1 announces, then player 2, then select, then player 2 announces, then player 1? This seems a bit limiting, as you can't really select Checkmate on the play where you don't reveal first, because you only stand to lose.

I believe the intended turn order is:

1: P1 selects 2: P2 selects 3: P1 reveals 4: P1 selects 5: P2 reveals 6: GOTO 2

I.e. each player always selects immediately before their opponent reveals.

Yeah, but what stops P1 from DDos'ing and picking checkmate each time?

If P2 picks check the first time, then they're done. At any point after if they pick checkmate, since P1 has checkmate selected they will reveal it and P2 will lose.

It seems like a poorly thought through game...

Because P1 lost on their first turn if P2 wasn’t about to pick checkmate

That assume a rule that wasn't state.

You're assume if someone picks 'checkmate' and the next player picks 'check' the games is over and the checkmate selector loses. I assumed that it means you treat it like 'check' 'check' and continue playing. But neither is actually specified in OPs post.

But let's assume it's your rules. Then winning is easy, just never pick checkmate. Literally never. As soon as your opponent picks it, they lose.

It's a terribly designed game as described.

So is war (the card game), but people still play it

I think the proposed game has that both of you lose, like tic tac toe. The only way to win is to checkmate as described. Although it is a memoryless game as proposed, so all options (restart, continue, end) are indistinguishable. Maybe if you win, you go again?

Anyways, the game seems to be described to be the equivalent to the political doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Also a terribly designed game.

But then you won't know if the other player has selected checkmate when you reveal yours.

If someone else uses your exact same prompt to generate the exact same code, can you claim copyright infringement against them? If the output is possible to copyright, then you could claim their prompt is infringement (just like if it reproduced Harry Potter). If it isn’t copyrightable, then the kernel would not have legal standing to enforce the GPL on those lines of code against any future AI reproduction of them. The developers might need to show that the code is licensed under GPL and only GPL, otherwise there is the possibility the same original contributor (eg the AI) did permit the copy. The GPL is an imposed restriction on what the kernel can legally do with any code contributions. That seems legally complicated for some projects—probably not the kernel with the large amount of pre-AI code, but maybe it spells trouble for smaller newer projects if they want to sue over infringement. IANAL.

> If someone else uses your exact same prompt to generate the exact same code, can you claim copyright infringement against them?

No, because they've independently obtained it from the same source that you did, so their copy is "upstream" of your imposing of a new license.

Realistically, adding a license to public domain work is only really meaningful when you've used it as a starting point for something else, and want to apply your license to the derivative work.

Copyright infringement is triggered by the act of copying, not by having the same bytes.

I’m curious to see if subscription vs free ends up mattering here. If it is a work for hire, generally it doesn’t matter how the work was produced, the end result is mine, because I contracted and instructed (prompted?) someone to do it for me. So will the copyright office decide it cares if I paid for the AI tool explicitly?

That would depend on whether those who sold you the software-output, had copyright to it.

I’ve done clocks like this before. It was sheer laziness. Easier to just set a 30 second update window than to actually compute the time to next update. Particular in some of my sloppier projects without an event loop. Of course, the only person who saw the result was me and it made me chuckle at considering the complexity of managing time well.

Seems like current monthly plan subscribers (like myself) haven't changed price. YouTube historically seemed to grandfather the monthly plans to stay at the old price for a while.

That's interesting. By not allowing yearly plans to renew automatically, they will force all yearly plans onto the new price. The former monthly price would be worse than the new yearly price, so it's still better... but not as good as being grandfathered in.

Looks like Google is forcing all old plans to the new price this time too. I just got an email.

Myself–and many redditors–got this erroneous notification too. I don't think Microsoft ever sent out an "Oops, sorry, you don't actually need to pay us" correction though.