GitHub is a huge and almost 20 year old company suddenly experiencing massive scale growth as a result of an externality it didn't cause and that no one predicted. That is an incredibly difficult scenario for any long-running, established organization to handle.

Yes, GitHub is temporarily breaking under the increased load, yes, it's likely to still be a thing in 2 months, and no, it's unlikely to still be a thing in 12 months.

It's very unlikely a cool new thing will peel enough developers off GitHub in the next six months to survive long term as GitHub inevitably gets its ability to handle the new normal scale back.

>it should be pretty clear that if you provided the tool the specification for the code you want, you have already provided creative input.

If you provided a human contractor with the specifications for the code you want, the courts have repeatedly made clear you have not provided the creative input from a copyright perspective, and the contractor needs to explicitly assign those rights to you if want to own the copyright on the code.

Let's say we didn't have assemblers, but instead we would have three professions:

- Specifiers, who make the specification for the system

- Programmers, who write C code

- Machine encoders, that take that C code and write machine code for a CPU

Would it be that the copyright would then belong to programmers, if no other explicit assignments would be made?

---

Thinking about it, probably yes: copyright of the spec belongs to specifies, copyright of the C belong to programmers, and copyright of machine code to machine encoders. Or would it depend on the amount of optimizations the machine encoders would do, i.e. is it creative or not? And then does this relate to the task and copyrightability of C compiler output, where optimizations can sometimes surprise the developer?

In music, you can have copyright for a composition (like, lyrics and sheet music), and then for a master record. If you sell a copy of a song, you generally have pay royalties to both copyright holders.

So, in your example, the specifiers would own the specification, the programmers the C code, and machine encoders own the machine code.

But the ownership wouldn't be complete. If you sell the machine code, you'd have to pay royalties to all three. If you only sold the C code, only to the specifiers and the programmers.

LLMs aren’t human.

The most important entry I found in my physical copy of the 1911 Britannica is for Eavesdropping[0], detailing the original historical origins of the term and how it was thought about just before our modern era.

> Though the offence of eavesdropping still exists at common law, there is no modern instance of a prosecution or indictment.

Thanks for posting this resource, I've often wanted to share a link to this and other entries.

[0]https://britannica11.org/article/08-0867-eavesdrip/eavesdrip...

That’s exactly the use case I had in mind. The 11th is full of gems like that, but they’ve never been easy to point people to.

So excited to see this - the big advantage of 1.58 bits is there are no multiplications at inference time, so you can run them on radically simpler and cheaper hardware.

At 4 bits, you could just have a hard-wired table lookup. Two 4 bit values in, 256 entry table. You can have saturating arithmetic and a post-processing function for free. Somebody must be building hardware like that.

Low level software engineers use look up tables.

Hardware engineers realise that a compiler will almost always find some combination of gates which is smaller/faster than the contents of any table.

A LUT is pretty wasteful. You only have a one bit significand, so the mantissa and sign bits are boolean binops, and the exponent is a 2 bit adder.

and so you can at 1-bit too, and the hardware will be even smaller and cheaper

Fascinating article. I'm genuinely unclear whether the avowedly fictional security team is detailing a real or fictional postmortem.

I have to say, it isn't very clear this really happened.

Reads like fiction or magic.

If it's a PR stunt it's a good one. I hadn't heard about mulerun before this.

Same. I looked through the other posts on the company's blog and they're pretty much all SEO slop like "How to Restore Old Photos With AI: Complete Guide" clearly written by an LLM.

But I can't quite decide whether this post being so conspicuously incongruous with the rest implies it's an exception and more likely real... or if the overall trend of posting low-effort SEO spam makes it probable that this, too, is simply marketing slop, just prompted for attention grabbing clickbait instead of inbound filler.

More people read the Atlantic than read books on college admissions. It is possible and often useful to increase the number of informed people even without adding net new information.

I don't think the book that he's famous for talks about the demographic trends much at all. It's just something that parents are aware of, and that is talked about as one of the ways in which admissions numbers will change in the next decade or two.

Wow - as a JetBrains customer I've been waiting for JetBrains to show what a good Agentic IDE should look like.

Excited to try it and surprised to find out about it in a random HN comment.

EDIT ADDED: bummer - looks like this only works with API keys, not Claude Pro or Max or similar for Codex

its still new. I'm hoping it will improve overtime.

I was completely riveted the whole read. The description of Collins' dilemma is the first time I've seen an actual real world scenario described that might cause him to return to Earth alone.

If an LLM wrote that, then I no longer oppose LLM art.

I thought that was the least likeable part of the article. They speculated wildly, somehow making the leap that a trained astronaut would not resort to a computer reset if the problems persisted to weave the narrative that this bug was super-duper-serious indeed. They didn't need that and it weakened the presentation.

Is Bonsai 1 Bit or 1.58 Bit?

1-bit g128 with a shared 16-bit scale for every group. So, effectively 1.125 bit.

I was excited about the 1.58 bit models from a year or two ago, but the never seemed to go anywhere. Curious in particular how this scales up.

1 bit or 1 trit*

Can I drag an email directly onto a Kanban or a Todo list, and prioritize it like a task, and then click on the card or task to go directly to the mail message, in the context of its thread?

I wanted to try a demo, but they require you to sign up for an account and configure it with email access, etc. Too painful for a demo.

No, and probably won't be. Each tool is intentionally standalone. You can link to things manually but there's no cross-tool wiring. I'd rather keep the codebase simple and each tool easy to understand on its own.

That’s the kind of thing Apple’s software explicitly tries to support. There’s a reason this stuff works better with native apps.