Terms of service might matter more for terminating that user account. Whole ordeal is just plain copyright violation. The author had no licence to that internal code, and whitewashing it with LLM will achieve nothing. That case is much clearer than that recent GPL->BSD attempt story.
If LLM-generated code isn't considered a derivative work of the original, then whether the author was licensed to use the code doesn't matter. But I'm sure the courts will rule in favor of your view regardless. Laundering GPL is in corps' interest and laundering their code is not.
I think it comes down to the company's appetite for legal action, doesn't it? This case is imo pretty clear but the vibe has quite the smell of Oracle v Google to me.
But, yeah. More than likely this case is a simple account termination and some kind of "you can't call your clone 'openviktor'" letter.
> led to a lot more options for my friend with celiac.
Did it really? I have hear some complaints that before "gluten free" meant it doesn't contain those allergens at all and now it only means "there are no grains on ingredient list". And with amount of cross-contamination in food industry that is nowhere near enough for people with allergy.
Not saying it’s actually linked to cancer but it definitely does increase the risk of hemorrhoids, rectal prolapse and bleeding from straining. Which could mean chronic stress at a cellular level repairing damage over the long term.
> When you install fresh Windows, it'll get activated automatically.
Same happens with some crapware provided by vendor. You can wipe drive all you want, but ASUS motherboard will ask Windows to automatically install "essential drivers", and to be specific - "Armoury Crate".
You can (partially) blame Microsoft for that. I still don't understand why it's seemingly OK for device manufacturers to distribute such crapware through Windows update. New keyboard? Oops, spyware. Printer on your LAN? Here, let me install these 16 utilities for you. Just give me a driver without any GUI tools. Or at the very least prompt me before installation.
If by worked you mean "worked so well they replaced all the big actors" then sure, nothing has worked.
But plenty has worked on a smaller scale. Raph Levien's Advogato worked fine.
There's also a reason most new social networks start up as invite only - it works great for cutting down on spam accounts. But once they pivot to prioritizing growth at all costs, it goes out the window.
PGP is niche. This would be far more mainstream. If you applied it to HN I could probably verify > 50 people already. For PGP I wouldn't know anybody...
Slower to implement new features, but still implementing them, just makes it the new Firefox. IE's larger problem was how popular it had been before it stopped implementing new features. It was like if Google got bored with Chrome and decided to stop all funding on it. People would be stuck on Chrome for years after that investment stopped because of all the Chrome-specific things built around it (Electron, Puppeteer, Selenium, etc and so forth).
Right now the world needs a lot more Safari and Firefox users complaining about Chrome-only sites and tools than it does people complaining about Safari "holding the web back". Safari's problems are temporary. Chrome is the new Emperor and IE wasn't bad because it stopped, it was bad because it stopped after being the Emperor for some time. People remember how bad the time was after the Empire crumbled, but it's how IE took so many other things down with it that it is easier to remember the interregnum after IE crumbled than to remember the heyday when "IE-only websites are good enough for business" sounded like a good idea and not a cautionary tale.
The biggest problem with IE from a developer standpoint wasn't the slow feature release cadence, it was that the features it did have worked differently from standards-based browsers. That's very much the position of Safari/WebKit today - code that works across all other engines throws errors in WebKit and often requires substantial changes to resolve.
Safari is also pretty popular on iPhones, in fact it has a full 100% market share. With browser updates tied to the OS, that means millions of devices have those "temporary" problems baked in forever.
When IE was the Emperor it was seen as IE's behaviors were the standards. The perspective at the time was that the other browsers were non-standard. That did get codified into the standards eventually. `* { box-sizing: border-box; }` that is towards the top of almost every "reset.css" is CSS standard for "use the IE box model". XHR was named XmlHttpRequest as an IE quirk and that set the standard we still mostly follow today; `fetch` is a nicer API but we still colloquially call it a part of/relative to/replacement for XHR including various browsers' Dev Tools where to focus on `fetch` requests you click the XHR tab.
Both of those things (and others) became "standards" when IE was moving quickly and breaking things. It took a while for the actual multi-browser standards to catch up. XHR took a few years to show up in non-IE browsers. CSS `box-sizing` wasn't added to the CSS standards until 2012 (11 years after IE6 was released, the "last" version of IE for a long time; five years without a new version). A lot of the web was built easier on those things or better with those things which lead to so many people using IE up to IE6 as their primary browser and so many developers building IE-only websites up to IE6.
Again, as a developer it can be easy to remember the pain of still supporting IE6 in 2005 (five years before tools like `box-sizing` made it a lot easier to support similar CSS for both IE and non-IE browsers, and a year before IE7 finally broke the "IE6 is the last IE" problem). It seems a lot harder to remember why we were still supporting a "dead"/"final" IE6 in 2005 or still supporting a "dead"/"final" IE6 in 2012 when IE10 was fresh and new and very standards compliant (including supporting both `box-sizing` modes) but not yet winning over the crowds of legacy sites: everyone was using IE6 until Microsoft killed it. A lot of things were built for its version of "standards" (many of which were better/easier to develop for versus their contemporary real standards) and couldn't be easily upgraded until the real standards also caught up to how fast IE had been innovating/changing/upgrading the standards.
The risk to the web platform that I think IE represents the most cautionary tale about is relying too much on the browser rushing ahead of the standards, because it could stop at any moment and may take a decade or more for the standards to truly catch back up. Because they did.
If Google decided today to do a "The Browser Company-style pivot" because the Age of AI means that browsers are dead, everything a browser can do should be done through agentic automation, and asked all of the Chrome team to switch to some new agentic harness or accept a soft layoff, how much work would there be to move websites out of being "Chrome-only" or built on top of Chromium? (Which to be further unfair is also sort of what feels like is already left of Microsoft's Edge team working in Chromium today.) It's real easy to imagine that hypothetical, I already named two companies working with Chromium that have just about done exactly that. The hypothetical is not that far from the inside baseball of what happened to IE6 where Microsoft thought browsers were "done" and pivoted the IE team to new roles on "higher priority" Windows work and/or soft layoffs.
We remember the pain of having to support older versions of IE pretty well, but not enough of us seem to remember the pain of how we got to that point and how easy it feels like companies could do that to the web again. Safari lagging current standards is a relatively smaller problem compared to if Chrome gets burnt we suffer another "internet dark age" of supporting ancient browsers for a decade or two due to legacy apps and in turn legacy users that don't or won't upgrade.
(Some would argue that can't happen in the same way that IE did because Chromium is open source and already has many forks. I can't help up but bring up examples like the word "diaspora" and the tale of "the Tower of Babel" that a messy soup of forks that no one can agree on as the new "standard" can be its own slow train wreck disaster.)
> Right now the world needs a lot more Safari and Firefox users complaining about Chrome-only sites and tools than it does people complaining about Safari "holding the web back".
There wouldn't be Chrome-only sites and tools if Safari wasn't holding the web back (no "quotes" needed, as that's precisely what they're doing).
> There wouldn't be Chrome-only sites and tools if Safari wasn't holding the web back (no "quotes" needed, as that's precisely what they're doing).
It's a matter of perspective. The safer perspective is: Safari isn't holding the web back, Chrome is moving too fast. Developers making Chrome-only sites and tools are moving too fast for the safety of web standards/web platform. Where one of the safety factors is "widely available in multiple implementations, not just a single browser".
> > Safari's problems are temporary.
> What are you talking about?
The point is that Safari may be moving slow, but it is still moving. It doesn't have enough users to hold the web back. It isn't "always a decade behind", it 's "a couple years to a couple months behind", depending on which caniuse or MDN Baseline approach you want to take.
There are some things Safari doesn't want to implement, but has registered safety or privacy or coupling reasons behind such things. Firefox is doing the same.
Safari isn't trapping website developers in "old standards forever", it is encouraging developers to use safe, private, stable choices. Chrome is "move fast and sometimes break things". Safari doesn't want to be that. That's useful for the web as a platform to have one or two browsers considering their implementations. It's a good reason to point out "Chrome-only" developers as being "too bleeding edge" (sometimes emphasis on the bleeding) and out of touch with standards and standards processes.
The only well supported and consistent argument I see in those links is that Safari is bad at PWAs. I agree with that. But (timely rant incoming) I also think everyone is currently bad at PWAs. The current ServiceWorker-based approach is brittle and hard to use because it is too low level and too tightly coupled to what seem to be Chrome-specific concerns. The previous manifest.json approach should have never been disabled in Chrome, it should have at least lived side-by-side and let developers vote by their feet, at least until a reasonably equivalent high-level manifest replacement was built.
I was just thinking about this this week because I have a webpage I built with offline capabilities and an excuse coming up where many of the webpage's users will be offline for a week but might have use for the webpage, but I can't easily turn it into a PWA because it was built as an MPA and there's no great high level tools for writing an MPA's ServiceWorker because most of the high level libraries are so (overly) focused on SPAs. I wish I could just put a manifest.json or some sort of zip archive users could download and have it share Local Storage.
I do pin a lot of this on Google engineers. The side effect is Safari is having a hard time implementing these "standards", but the real cause is the "standards" are over-complicated trash that are also hard to develop for. Everyone including the links you sent can see how Apple's App Store moat gives them an incentive to drag their feet on implementing these "standards" and yet no one is giving Google enough gruff for the conflict of interest with Google Play's moats and making over-complicated standards that are hard for anyone to use and harder for anyone else to implement is just another way to drag your feet and keep the whole web platform behind, without looking like you are dragging your feet.
It would feel different, too, if the fully declarative manifest.json approach hadn't briefly worked (well) in Edge (Spartan) and Firefox before Google derailed that standards train with "Chrome-first" ServiceWorker complications. Always seemed like one of the reasons that Microsoft just gave up on the web platform because they couldn't keep up with Google's machinations (and conflicts of interest) in Chrome.
It is bizarre that you're "pinning" this on the Chromium engineers - who are essentially the only ones moving the web forward.
The safari feet dragging/obstruction goes far beyond PWAs. The chart on this page is one of many examples showing how consistently far behind Safari is - they've been enormously behind chrome and firefox in coverage of tests for 7+ years. https://wpt.fyi/. And here's an extremely comprehensive article on the topic https://webventures.rejh.nl/blog/2024/history-of-safari-show...
As for standards, here's another detailed series to learn from https://infrequently.org/series/effective-standards-work/. Once again, you have it all backwards. Saying "no one is giving Google enough gruff for the conflict of interest with Google Play's moats and making over-complicated standards" is not only laughable, but just dumb - Google doesn't and, in fact, can't "make standards". Standards are something that comes about through the painful diplomatic process described in those links.
Moreover, it is quite clearly an institutional decision to hold back the web, or else they would allow for other browser engines to run on iOS rather than focing them all to be skins on webkit. Again, this is all documented in extreme detail in the articles on that site. If you find it to be still somehow lacking, the author is very open to discussion on bluesky or mastodon (I'd prepare far better though, because what you've said thus far would get eviscerated).
Also bizarre that you are saying that Google Play is somehow at the root of this supposed scheme to make web standards impossible for others to implement. Android is similarly against the web flourishing, but evidently not nearly as powerful in the greater Google enterprise as iphone/app store is in Apple.
As for MPA PWAs, there's nothing at all stopping you from serving pages from a service worker. There's plenty of valid and accessible ways to precache all the pages that a user might need while offline. Workbox (from Google!) makes it easy, but its also easy to hand-roll.
And, Microsoft most definitely has not given up on the web platform - they literally adopted and make contributions to chromium. The author of that site literally works at Microsoft now, coaching both internal and external teams on improving their use of the web, as well as contributing to standards.
I dont see any point in continuing this discussion, as you haven't shown even the slightest interest in considering how you're living in some bizarro world.
If you are actually attempting to communicate in good faith, i can't recommend strongly enough that you read that entire site. And, likewise, read and support the work of Open Web Advocacy. https://open-web-advocacy.org/
> It is bizarre that you're "pinning" this on the Chromium engineers - who are essentially the only ones moving the web forward.
I'm saying this is exactly the problem. If the perception is that only one browser is "moving forward" and the rest are just chasing that moving target, that's not healthy and it is not a standards process. WHATWG has always been at risk of "regulatory capture" by Google or at least Chromium interests. More so than ever there are standards that seems like WHATWG rubber stamped whatever Chrome decided to do without larger consensus work with Safari and Firefox. That's really dangerous for the web platform. (And W3C lost to WHATWG and seems increasingly irrelevant as a standards body for HTML.)
I think we are all very lucky that ECMA hasn't so far shown the same risk and TC-39 (JS) continues to look overall diverse and healthy.
> Google doesn't and, in fact, can't "make standards". Standards are something that comes about through the painful diplomatic process described in those links.
This is why I put standards in quotes in most of that comment. I do think WHATWG has already signed off on Chrome-first things as "standards" that aren't in the sense of multiple robust implementations and a diverse enough number of stakeholders that aren't just using Chromium-derived codebases. I worry WHATWG is at risk of getting worse in this.
> As for MPA PWAs, there's nothing at all stopping you from serving pages from a service worker. There's plenty of valid and accessible ways to precache all the pages that a user might need while offline. Workbox (from Google!) makes it easy, but its also easy to hand-roll.
As very personal experience from building PWAs (and failing to build many more of them): Workbox is bloated and awful to work with and is bad enough at SPAs that trying to feed it an MPA makes me want to scream just thinking about it. Hand-rolling a Service Worker remains a nightmare because the API is awful to work with by hand, which is the whole reason Workbox exists. There's something very wrong with the APIs that right now the only answer seems to be "just use Workbox". That's not healthy for the web platform to be so dependent on a single vendor's tool to get over the hump of using a web API. (Even if that tool is open source. CVEs affect open source like everything else.)
The last time I was serious about PWA development I broke down in tears and switched to Ionic's Capacitor and Electron because browser wrappers are still too much easier than writing a PWA.
I know that isn't just me also anecdotally by the number of Electron apps running on my machine even right now (a bunch) and the number of PWA apps running on my machine (none).
Statistically Service Workers and Workbox are massive failures, and it isn't Apple's fault and it is weird to me claiming that it is entirely Apple's fault. If you don't want to blame Google or at least Chromium engineers, that's fine, we don't have to agree on that. But show me the app with a working PWA ServiceWorker that has a good reliable caching strategy, good offline-first support, and people use that offline-first capability regularly and I'll show you a unicorn. The APIs are terrible, the standards should be better. If we don't want to point fingers at why the current APIs and standards are so awful, can we at least find someone to point a finger at who is actively working to make them better? It doesn't seem to be "Just Use Workbox" Chromium. Who is actually trying to move the offline-first web forward towards pragmatic reality and not just "we support it in theory, with this one JS library, but very few are using it in practice and almost none successfully"?
> And, Microsoft most definitely has not given up on the web platform - they literally adopted and make contributions to chromium. The author of that site literally works at Microsoft now, coaching both internal and external teams on improving their use of the web, as well as contributing to standards.
When Microsoft switched to Chromium they soft laid off a lot of their web platform staff. Chromium Edge's outward development focus seems to be AI and First-Party Coupon Cutting Extensions.
Spartan Edge had ideals and seemed to really believe in the PWA as a first class application platform. For a time, I had a bunch of PWAs as daily use applications in Windows 8 and early 10 (not all of which I built myself, either). That era is certainly gone now. WebView2 is making some inroads in reduce the reliance on Electron by certain types of apps, but WebView2 isn't a PWA platform, it is another end run around it/away from it.
> I dont see any point in continuing this discussion, as you haven't shown even the slightest interest in considering how you're living in some bizarro world.
> If you are actually attempting to communicate in good faith
You've strayed close enough to the realm of ad hominem attacks that I'm going to stop here. It doesn't sound like we are going to ever agree, but certainly not because I'm not debating in "good faith" or living in some "bizarro world". It seems rude to me to imply such accusations. Just because I have a different perspective doesn't make me a bad actor nor prove I have some sort of mental health issues. I may have experienced a different world than you have in my career, but there was nothing "bizarro" or worse about it. Different perspectives should be a joy to engage with, not an affront to ridicule. I'm sorry I couldn't find help you find common ground.
it would, indeed, be great if there were others contributing to the web. Mozilla should be, but they seem to be run by incompetent grifters. Apple could be, but that would be completely against their interests. So we're left with chromium moving the web forward - that's not their fault and its ludicrous that you keep saying it is.
as for service worker, I literally said you dont need workbox. I have done lots of hand-rolled MPA caching. Its dead-simple, so i dont know what complexity you're referring to.
As for the fact that there arent many good pwas out there - people dont bother because iphone is a mess. Your arguments would hold water if apple allowed other browser engines and then pwas still languished.
Even still, there's all sorts of efforts towards offline/local-first. Its a hard problem to solve. But, again, simple MPA caching is not hard. If its a dynamic backend, then that would be much more difficult
Does immutability implies using only open weight models? Both Anthropic and OpenAI keep deprecating/removing ability to run older versions of their models. And that means all previously recorded prompts would now produce slightly different output.
For me it is 1. Terrible quality of all rubbery/soft elements. 2. If it is original model (instead of ripping of existing set), it often contains huge, shell like elements, that can't be easily be in custom designs. 3. I guess the previous point doesn't really matter, when bricks are designed to be assembled once and are impossible to pull apart without hurting your fingers.
reply