What's wrong with pulling up to the wrong side of the pump? I do it all the time when the petrol station is busy, just pull the hose over to the other side and fuel the car anyway.
just because there's nothing particularly wrong with only getting the usb in on the 3rd try doesn't mean it's not a minor inconvenience worth resolving.
but if you want a more dramatic example, it's right there in the text: Moylan got soaked because of this inconvenience. if he'd gotten a pneumonia as a result of this and died, then that is suddenly much more than a minor inconvenience.
I'm in Europe, the hoses always reach to the other side of the car just fine. Or maybe you know, remember that Europe isn't one country and actually say where you are.
I'm in Europe, in case you're on the "wrong" side of the pump you just have to make sure that you park the car a little further, so you'd get the pump hose through the back and on to the other side without scratching the car's paint. That's all it is to it. I'm from Romania and I've driven (and hence re-fueled) my car all the way from Bretagne, France, to Peloponnese, Greece, never had a problem.
I also don't know anything about any "arrow" signalling anything in my dashboard, maybe it's only on the US-made cars, I wouldn't know cause I generally know on which side I have to fuel my car.
Agreed about never having a problem with this, but our cars either have the arrow, or the hose in the icon is on the side of the car that has the tank cover. This has been true for all cars I've seen here.
If you got in a taxi to take you 35km away and he drove you 60km away to a random other town instead, would you consider "kidnapped" to be over the top?
Does it only count as "kidnap" if you are not eventually released? Or is it just that it's not kidnap when a corporation does it?
kidnap:
to take a person away illegally by force, usually in order to demand money in exchange for releasing them.
The "usually" refers to the money, but the part that is "always" is the existence of an intent.
There was no intent here. This was a mistake, not on purpose. Nobody would say, unless to make a joke, "i was kidnapped by an elevator" Because the elevator works automatically, it has no intent to take the person by force and hold them hostage.
The train operator deliberately drove the train, with passengers on it, to places they knew the passengers didn't want to go, and did not allow them a chance to get out sooner.
If a taxi driver were to do the same thing we would say he kidnapped his passengers.
The fact that trains are operated by big corporations does not absolve them of responsibility. If anything they should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
That assumes that supply production means can scale up instantly. Fabs for high end chips don't and usually take years from foundations being laid to First chip out of the production line.
In the interim, yeah, they will force prices up.
Additionally those fabs cost billions. Given the lead time I mentioned a lot of companies won't start building them right away since the risk of demand going away is high and the ROI in those cases might become unreachable
I think one of these fab compaies have already invested/talked about investing 700 BILLION dollars (I think it was micron? but I am not sure)
I have heard that in the fab making industry, things moves in cycles and this cycle has been repeated so many times and the reason that ram is so expensive was that at one time during covid there was shortage so they built more factories and they built so so many that these companies took a hit in stocks so they then went and closed and at just the bottom of their factory production levels, the AI bubble started to pop in and need their ram's and now they are once again increasing factory levels
And after the supply due to AI gets closed with the additional compute etc., I doubt it
I think that within 2-3 or maybe 4 years of timeframe ram will get cheaper imo.
The problem is, if someone can fill the market till that time.
And they never went down to pre-crypto pricing. For quite a while, Intel was the only company producing reasonably specced GPUs at somewhat reasonable prices.
> You don't think that as prices go up, the supply might also go up, and the equilibrium price will be maintained?
This assumes infinite and uniformly distributed resources as well as no artificial factors such as lobbying, corruption, taxation or legislation which might favour one entity over the other.
The dream of free market exists only in a vacuum free from the constraints of reality.
The written offer is part of the licence, as is the need to respond to that offer with the source code offered. It is all part of the same agreement.
A written offer on its own would not normally be directly enforceable in many (most?) jurisdictions, for the same sort of reason that retailers can't be held to incorrectly published prices (in the UK at least, a displayed price is an “invitation to tender”, not a contract or other promise) except where other laws/regulations (anti bait&switch rules for instance), or the desire to avoid fighting in the court of public opinion, come into effect.
But in this instance, the written offer and the response to that offer are part of the wider licence that has been agreed to.
> If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
That section (and similar in section 6d) is not about the written offer of source code. The written offer of source code is instead covered in section 6c.
> c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.
So according to the legal theory expressed in this thread so far, nobody can sue anybody and there's no obligation to provide source code. The copyright holder couldn't sue because the license was followed (an offer was provided) and the end user couldn't sue because the offer doesn't have to be followed up on.
Or, instead of theorycrafting reasons why it shouldn't work, you could "just" sue them and see if the judge agrees.
> the same sort of reason that retailers can't be held to incorrectly published prices (in the UK at least, a displayed price is an “invitation to tender”, not a contract or other promise)
The hell? Over here, the price tags are a sort of public contract, to which the seller pre-commits. The seller forgot to change the tags? That's not the buyer's problem.
Since money has not exchanged hands, you could always decide not to buy at the counter. So atleast in the countries I have been, it is not legally binding.
Only if deliberate. If the incorrect price is corrected as soon as the problem is noticed then that is (legally) fine. If the incorrect price is left displayed, or was put up deliberately to draw people in, then it is bait & switch.
The other solid bait & switch is advertising a product that they don't have any of to sell, in the hope that you'll come in and buy something more expensive (or lower value) instead.
Offer and acceptance are part of how contracts are formed. There is no contract without there first being an offer.
If you accept someones offer, provided it meets the rest of the criteria for a valid contract - congratulations you now have a contract. If the any party violates it, yes this is a breach of contract.
> A written offer is not the same thing as a contract.
An offer is a precondition and component of a contract
The customer spends money to buy the product along with the source code offered. It's part of the transaction. Not honoring part of the transaction is a breach of contract.
I think they're just saying the GPL doesn't really cover consumer/distributor (dis)agreements, it only covers copyright. While the spirit of the GPL is user-first, it still has to be realized within the confines of copyright law. Even though many people might conflate the spiritual goal and the legal agreement, it doesn't grant "users" any extraordinary legal powers.
It's not illegal to not honor written offers, it's illegal to distribute copyrighted material in violation of it's license.
So gpl is a licensor-licensee contract, if code and license is not shared to the user, then there is no contract to which the user is a party, rather the user is a beneficiary.
The offer of source code seems to be a way to facilitate the conveyance of source code through opt-in means separately from the object code rather than some legal trickery to create a user-licensee contract.
While the offer may indeed convey a licensee-user obligation, a compliant distribution would attach a license anyway, converting the user into a licensee and licensor to licensee in a recursive fashion
I wonder if lawyers specialize in this, it sounds very cool and not at all standard law, but somehow compatible with contract law
On the shelves are three insulin pumps: one with a 5-year warranty, one at a bargain barrel price that comes with no warranty, and one accompanied by a written offer allowing you to obtain the source code (and, subject to the terms of the GPL, prepare your own derivative works) at no additional charge any time within the next three years.
Weighing your options, you go with pump #3. You write to the company asking for the GPL source. They say "nix". They're in breach.
The GPLv2 under which Linux is licensed does not prohibit that insulin pump from bricking itself if you tried to install "your own derivative work" that wasn't signed by the manufacturer.
This is not only possible but also prudent for a device which can also kill you.
Maybe it’s not technically “breach of contract”, and an offer might or might not be a contract. But if you don’t honor an offer you made, you must surely be guilty of something. Otherwise, all offers would be meaningless and worth nothing.
> you must surely be guilty of something. Otherwise, all offers would be meaningless and worth nothing.
You don't have to be "guilty" of anything to be liable in civil law (which contract law is a part of). "Guilt" is a concept from criminal law. It isn't required for contracts to be enforceable.
In general (there are exceptions) offers alone aren't enforceable and don't result in a contract. You need other elements (agreement by the parties, plus something done in return for what's offered) for a contract to be formed - and then it's enforceable.
Making convincing videos of the world without having a world model would be like writing convincing essays about computing without understanding computing.
There's a few things to consider here:
- there are many aspects to the video that are not convincing, indicating these videogen models do not grok the world the same way a typical human does
- A 6 year old child is almost certainly incapable of recreating pixel level fidelity video footage, yet understands the world extremely well... far beyond what current robotics is capable of.
The two facts above should be indicative that predicting noise (as with DDPM diffusion models), or predicting pixel level (or even VAE latent "pixel") information is probably not the optimal path to world understanding. Probably not even a good path to good world models.
reply