Out of the two claims, the only one that made it to appeals court was about whether it was fair use for Bleem to use screenshots of PS1 games to advertise its emulator (which was compatible with those games). The Ninth Circuit decided it was. But that's not relevant here.
The other claim was more relevant, as it was an unfair competition claim that apparently had something to do with Bleem's reimplementation of the PS1 BIOS. But the district court's record of the case doesn't seem to be available online, and the information I was able to find online was vague, so I don't know what exactly the facts or legal arguments were on that claim. Without an appeal it also doesn't set precedent.
If there were a lawsuit over OpenTTD, it would probably be for copyright infringement rather than unfair competition, and it would probably focus more on fair use and copyrightability. For fair use, it matters how much something is functional versus creative. The PS1 BIOS is relatively functional, but a game design and implementation are highly creative. On the other hand, despite being creative, game mechanics by themselves are not copyrightable. So it might come down to the extent to which OpenTTD's code was based on the reverse-engineered original code, as opposed to being a truly from-scratch reimplementation of the same mechanics. Visual appearance would also be relevant. Oracle v. Google would be an important precedent.
FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD at first when every BSD OS was just part of 386BSD it used to have AT&T code. That code was rewritten replacing every propietary part and after that (and noticing BSD 4.4 was incomplete) we got clean FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD from a NetBSD fork.
Another similar case with exact grounds was GNU which with Linux it completed an OS albeit in a hacky way, because the original OS would have been GNU+Hurd, but both are reimplementing Unix. Same SH derived shell, but extended. Kinda like OpenTTD. We have GNU Coreutils, Findutils, GNU AWK reimplementing and extending AWK (even when AWK was propietary), GNU Zip, Tar... the list goes on and on.
Oh, another one: Lesstif vs Motif. Same UI, if not very, very close to Motif 1.2 in order to be interoperable. Today it doesn't matter because nearly a decade a go Motif was relicensed into the GPL, but tons of libre software depending on propietary Motif was just seamlessly running with LessTIF libraries except for some rough edges/bugs. One of the most known example was DDD, a GUI for GDB.
> Unless they're also implying that the US government should be allowed to go after UK companies that don't follow it's free speech regulations because American citizens can access them.
Precedent in the US is that courts do in fact have jurisdiction over a foreign website's owner if the owner "purposefully availed itself of the U.S. forum or purposefully directed its activities toward it", a test which is less demanding than it sounds. [1]
And US has taken advantage of this to go after foreign websites such as Megaupload, BTC-e, Liberty Reserve, etc.
Therefore, if there were a US law requiring companies to follow free speech rules, it could potentially be enforced against foreign website owners. But no such law currently exists. The First Amendment itself only applies to the US government (and to companies working on behalf of the US government). There is also the SPEECH Act, which, among other provisions, creates a cause of action where if someone sues a US person in a foreign court over their speech, they can sue back in US court. But only for declaratory judgement, not damages or an injunction. The goal is mainly just to prevent US courts from enforcing judgements from the foreign court in such cases.
Typically, it doesn't have the ability to deal with a full 64 bits of memory, but it does have the ability to deal with more than 32 bits of memory, and all pointers are 64 bits long for alignment reasons.
It's possible but rare for systems to have 64-bit GPRs but a 32-bit address space. Examples I can think of include the Nintendo 64 (MIPS; apparently commercial games rarely actually used the 64-bit instructions, so the console's name was pretty much a misnomer), some Apple Watch models (standard 64-bit ARM but with a compiler ABI that made pointers 32 bits to save memory), and the ill-fated x32 ABI on Linux (same thing but on x86-64).
That said, even "32-bit" CPUs usually have some kind of support for 64-bit floats (except for tiny embedded CPUs).
The 360 and PS3 also ran like the N64. On PowerPC, 32 bit mode on a 64 bit processor just enables a 32 bit mask on effective addresses. All of the rest is still there line the upper halves of GPRs and the instructions like ldd.
Summary: He created 4 hard-to-key shots, and on each of them tried KeyLight, IBK, and Corridor Key. Overall on 3 of them he judged that Corridor Key had done the best job, on one of them he judged that IBK had done the best job. I think on all of them he judged that more work was still necessary, none of them was fully usable as-is.
If you just want the optimizer to be able to constant-fold a value, then yes, either of those will work.
If you want to be able to use the value in the other contexts the parent mentioned that require constant expressions as a language rule, then you generally need constexpr. As an exception, non-constexpr variable values can be used if they’re const (not ‘happens to not vary’) and have integer or enum type (no floats, structs, pointers, etc.). This exception exists for legacy reasons and there’s no particular reason to rely on it unless you’re aiming for compatibility with older versions of C++ or C.
Even if you don’t need to use a variable in those contexts, constexpr evaluation is different from optimizer constant evaluation, and generally better if you can use it. In particular, the optimizer will give up if an expression is too hard to evaluate (depending on implementation-specific heuristics), whereas constexpr will either succeed or give an error (depending only on language rules). It’s also a completely separate code path in the compiler. There are some cases where optimizer constant evaluation can do things constexpr can’t, but most of those have been removed or ameliorated in recent C++ standards.
So it’s often an improvement to tag anything you want to be evaluated at compile time as constexpr, and rarely worse. However, if an expression is so trivial that it’s obvious the optimizer will be able to evaluate it, and you don’t need it in contexts that require a constant expression, then there’s no concrete benefit either way and it becomes a matter of taste. Personally, I wouldn’t tag this particular pi/2 variable constexpr or const, because it does satisfy those criteria and I personally prefer brevity. But I understand why some people prefer a rule of “always constexpr if possible”, either because they like the explicitness or because it’s a simpler rule.
It doesn’t strike me as AI. The writing is reasonably information-dense and specific, logically coherent, a bit emotional. Rarely overconfident or vague. If it is AI then there was a lot more human effort put into refining it than most AI writing I’ve read.
As long as IPv4x support was just something you got via software update rather than a whole separate configuration you had to set up, the vast majority of servers probably would have supported IPv4x by the time addresses got scarce.
However, if it did become a problem, it might be solvable with something like CGNAT.
CGNAT would also be easier on routers too, since currently they need to maintain a table of their port being used to the destination ip and port. Whereas with ipv4x, the routing information can be determined from the packet itself and no extra memory would be required
That's only true when forwarding IPv4x -> IPv4. When you're going the reverse direction and you need to forward IPv4 -> IPv4x, well, still need a table then.
This article has a whole lot of "it's not X, it's Y"…
In reality this isn't much of a change. For decades it's been a given that mainstream CPUs have vector instructions. RISC-V was the odd man out in _not_ mandating vector instructions. Even so, most CPU code doesn't use them.
And this is unlikely to change anytime soon. Yes, ML workloads are becoming much more popular, but CPUs are still not parallel enough to do a good job at them. Only occasionally is it a good idea to try anyway.
Edit: Note that there is something novel about the approach that RISC-V and ARM are now following, namely being vector-length agnostic, but this is unlikely to have much impact on how much CPU code is vectorized in the first place. It improves scalability a little, but also gives compilers a little harder of a job. It is not something that's going to fundamentally transform the extent to which CPU code uses vector instructions.
That would not be a good approach on Macs where most users are using reduced/laptop keyboards that have no Insert key.
In this respect, Apple got pretty lucky. Most users were not using reduced keyboards in 1987 when they originally decided to add the Control key separate from Command. Plus, Mac OS didn't even have a native terminal at the time; I assume there were terminal emulators for networking/serial use but I can't imagine that was top-of-mind for Apple either.
Regardless, Cmd-C is definitely a more convenient shortcut than Control-Insert, even if you do have the keys for the latter.
> Mac OS didn't even have a native terminal at the time; I assume there were terminal emulators for networking/serial use but I can't imagine that was top-of-mind for Apple either.
I think it was in their mind. The manual for the keyboard (yes, keyboards had manuals back then) says the keyboard has “special keys that work in applications running in alternative operating systems” (https://www.cvxmelody.net/Apple%20Extended%20Keyboard%20II%2...)
I agree with you about Cmd-C being more convenient but that’s besides the point.
My point was that on all three operating systems Ctrl-C has an unambiguous feature: send SIGINT. It is more important to have SIGINT be consistent than have copy be consistent. Accidentally sending SIGINT to a job that has been running for an hour? That hour of work may now be gone. This is a deliberate action that should not be a mistake. Copying is not that? Win+C on Windows doesn’t do any destructive actions.
Out of the two claims, the only one that made it to appeals court was about whether it was fair use for Bleem to use screenshots of PS1 games to advertise its emulator (which was compatible with those games). The Ninth Circuit decided it was. But that's not relevant here.
The other claim was more relevant, as it was an unfair competition claim that apparently had something to do with Bleem's reimplementation of the PS1 BIOS. But the district court's record of the case doesn't seem to be available online, and the information I was able to find online was vague, so I don't know what exactly the facts or legal arguments were on that claim. Without an appeal it also doesn't set precedent.
If there were a lawsuit over OpenTTD, it would probably be for copyright infringement rather than unfair competition, and it would probably focus more on fair use and copyrightability. For fair use, it matters how much something is functional versus creative. The PS1 BIOS is relatively functional, but a game design and implementation are highly creative. On the other hand, despite being creative, game mechanics by themselves are not copyrightable. So it might come down to the extent to which OpenTTD's code was based on the reverse-engineered original code, as opposed to being a truly from-scratch reimplementation of the same mechanics. Visual appearance would also be relevant. Oracle v. Google would be an important precedent.
reply