The country has categorically not been blockaded. A blockade is an act of war where a country prevents all trade regardless of origin.
Cuba has been embargoed which prevents US owned businesses, as well as any businesses which operate in the US, from trading with it. An embargo is not an act of war, it's a way for market economies to apply economic pressure using their soft power. It's not enforced by the military away from the territory of the country placing the embargo and is instead enforced domestically using the police.
Large oil-producing countries that traded with Cuba include Venezuela, Russia (the USSR before 1990), China, and Iran. Market democracies are all pretty OK with the embargo, because trade with a country that doesn't recognize property rights is inherently fraught.
Of those countries, only China remains relatively unencumbered and they've limited exports for internal reasons. There were also a few other source countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Algeria. Algeria stopped years ago because of internal issues. Mexico and Brazil stopped after pressure from the US. That leaves Cuba's domestic production, which is limited to begin with and can't be refined in any sufficient quantity.
Use whatever word you want to use to describe the situation, but the practical result strongly resembles a blockade.
> Of those countries, only China remains relatively unencumbered and they've limited exports for internal reasons.
Yeah, only China remains unencumbered because only China didn't collapse under the weight of an absurd ideology and crushingly oppressive government. Thanks to Xi's heavyhanded interventions and reassertion of state control, they're trending the wrong way.
The USSR couldn't compete with the free world and collapsed. Venezuela had been shedding refugees for decades before Trump abducted the pro-Havana regime. Iran murdered 30,000 protestors in the streets before the US started bombing it. No matter how you slice it, Cuba had decades of steady imports from friendly nations and yet has remained poor and underdeveloped because of its economic model. No amount of trained doctors or public healthcare can compete with the fact that, until recently, it was illegal to start a business on the island.
If we rewind to 2015 before Trump ever took office, none of these were different. All of those countries were flimsy states and unreliable trading partners, and Cuba routinely dealt with famines and shortages. American pressure doesn't help, but even if the US hadn't embargoed Cuba when the revolution happened it would still have been forced to embargo it afterwards when the Cuban government started launching into its anti-US foreign interventions (there's a fascinating Wikipedia rabbit hole there, if you're bored).
I will use words to describe the situation that actually describe the situation. Cuba sucks at trade because it has been continuously alienating its largest neighbor and blocking domestic industry from forming since the revolution.
Mind you, the US even supported the Cuban Revolution against Batista (despite supporting him for decades). That lasted until the revolutionary government started seizing American holdings and executing landlords.
The history of the two countries is complicated and it does both of them a disservice to pretend like this is a black-and-white "evil imperialist US embargoes a fledgling, innocent socialist Republic."
I'm not sure where in my comment you read any positive statements about Cuba, but I assure you they're not present. I'm only saying that the situation created by the US this year is little different in practice from the effects of actions you would call a blockade.
Right, but that cost is also incurred by human-written code that happens to have bugs.
In theory experienced humans introduce less bugs. That sounds reasonable and believable, but anyone who's ever been paid to write software knows that finding reliable humans is not an easy task unless you're at a large established company.
Well, if you keep in mind that "professionals" means "people paid to write code" then LLMs have been generating code at the same quality OR BETTER for about a year now. Most code sucks.
If you compare it to beautiful code written by true experts, then obviously not, but that kind of code isn't what makes the world go 'round.
We should qualify that kind of statement, as it’s valuable to define just what percentile of “professional developers” the quality falls into. It will likely never replace p90 developers for example, but it’s better than somewhere between there and p10. Arbitrary numbers for examples.
Can you quantify the quality of a p90 or p10 developer?
I would frame it differently. There are developers successfully shipping product X. Those developer are, on average, as skilled as necessary to work on project X. else they would have moved on or the project would have failed.
Can LLMs produce the same level of quality as project X developers? The only projects I know of where this is true are toy and hobby projects.
> Can you quantify the quality of a p90 or p10 developer?
Of course not, you have switched “quality” in this statement to modify the developer instead of their work. Regarding the work, each project, as you agree with me on from your reply, has an average quality for its code. Some developers bring that down on the whole, others bring it up. An LLM would have a place somewhere on that spectrum.
There was a recent study posted here that showed AI introduces regressions at an alarming rate, all but one above 50%, which indicates they spend a lot of time fixing their own mistakes. You've probably seen them doing this kind of thing, making one change that breaks another, going and adjusting that thing, not realizing that's making things worse.
The study is likely "SWE-CI: Evaluating Agent Capabilities in Maintaining Codebases via Continuous Integration". Regression rate plot is figure 6.
Read the study to understand what it is measuring and how it was measured. As I understand parent's summary is fine, but you want to understand it first before repeating it to others.
Yeah, e-bikes with thumb throttles are so good that the only reason they haven't already supplanted motorcycles is that there are ten bajillion old unkillable motorcycle engines in use.
It's a shame that US law doesn't have a nice in-between that would slot these bikes between proper e-bikes and motorcycles.
Ebikes definitely aren't a viable alternative in Asia yet. Most Asian countries either have no charge stations or very few. Range doesn't compare with gas motorcycles.
Hundreds of millions of motorcycles are still in active use with no real incentive to change
They can get away with it because Apple fans (even the ones who are tech-literate) react with visceral disgust when anyone suggests and Android phone or a non-Mac PC.
It does not hurt that Android and iOS are both kind of the same OS now. Yes, I get that there are a million differences between the two, but now that we're at almost two straight decades of the platforms copying features from one another, the difference is academic for most people.
I don't think that would be a good idea for two reasons:
1. Trump could decide what to apply the negative tariff to (e.g. Trump merchandise or his buddies)
2. If there's a fixed amount of money to dole out and suppliers know it, approximately zero dollars will be given back to consumers because it will be easy to capture the money on the importer side.
How many of the last ten years have had some kind of "temporary" GPU shortage? It was crypto, now it's LLMs, who knows what's next?
The only winning strategy for these guys is to exploit the market for all it's worth during shortages and carefully control production to manage the inevitable gluts.
Layering in the container spec is achieved by overlaying each layer's filesystem (a tarball, I think) over each layer below it. If file "a" is modified in layers 3 and 5, the resulting container will have data for both versions but reading "a" in the container will return version 5.
Docker exploits this to figure out when it can cache a layer, but building a container is different than running one because changing the underlying file system can change what a command outputs. If you're running a container, changing one deeply buried layer doesn't change the layers above it because they're already saved.
There will be nothing but pain and frustration if you ask corporations to try and supplant the courts. Copyright law is old and does not make provisions for the modern era.
You get a copyright when you create a work and it does not require any kind of registration. Establishing who has a copyright, if the work is copyrightable in the first place, or if an alleged infringement is fair use or not are thorny questions where two reasonable people might disagree.
That's why the law requires platforms to preemptively take down media if someone complains. It's because copyright, in the US and most of the world, is actually impossible to determine for private parties and minor works. You need a court and two sets of lawyers to figure out who actually did what. As the article says:
> The status of RODIK and the ownership of its rights are currently unclear. This makes it likely that Cookie’s Bustle is an “orphan work”, a copyrighted work where the owner is either unknown or cannot be located.
Copyright reforms requiring registration could fix this, but I don't think things are going to be calm enough to allow it for decades. I get that it's trendy to complain about big companies getting this wrong, but it's stupid to blame them for trying to survive under the current rules.
I do speak more broadly than this specific case. But even in this case: many of the notices here might have been deemed not-obviously-invalid, and thus DMCA process should be followed, but also (as described) many of them are manifestly fair use or in some cases not even infringing: and such notices can reasonably be rejected.
Don’t think these platforms obey every notice that meets the nominal requirement of the statute; they definitely do ignore some because they’re obviously nonsense. I suggest they should do this more. Yes, they theoretically open themselves up to liability in doing so, so I do expect them to err on the side of the claimer if there is any reasonable doubt.
But instead, they side with rights-claimers (who may or may not be rights-holders) structurally. They make takedown systems that go well beyond what is legally required, and then don’t police them, so that they invariably become vessels of abuse.
Here is a detailed example from uploading church services with old hymns in 2020, and YouTube’s Content ID system actively facilitating copyright fraud: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892. I say YouTube should be required to cut off such transparent copyright fraud, when it is pointed out; and that if they’re not willing to do so, their platform should be shut down.
The core ask in this article (and elsewhere) is not for large companies to prove or disprove copyright claims themselves without the help of the court systems, the primary ask is that companies better support even basic Fair Use checks/reviews before takedowns. A lot of "Fair Use" qualifications are easy: is it academic (an essay, perhaps), is it transformative (a video about a game and not a copy of the game, maybe), how much of the copyright was infringed (is it a short clip in a larger study, as an example).
The big companies don't want to do this basic due diligence because today at least it requires human labor, even if that human labor is "do a quick glance and check a couple boxes".
The article even points out that US laws say that things taken down for copyright infringement but are in fact Fair Use should be able to claim damages. In theory a class action lawsuit of video essayists could make a real strong case in direct, estimated demonitization losses due to spurious copyright takedown notices YouTube acted upon automatically without any Fair Use checks. I can't imagine the stress of being involved in a case like that in practice, which is probably why there isn't enough people begging to be in a class action lawsuit like that.
The way it works now is that the accuser has a few days to submit proof that they're suing to defend their rights, or else the platform can reinstate the content. In practice this would (and does) lead to a game of whack-a-mole between large rightsholders who have to pay money for lawyers and uploaders, who don't pay anything but an internet bill. Obviously, this doesn't fly in court and platforms have to go out of their way to ensure that they aren't profiting from mass piracy. It doesn't help that the aforementioned lawyers are always eager to go after a juicy, solvent target instead of Some Dude in Ohio with fiber and a lot of free time.
What do you do when your basic fair use check turns out to not be so basic after all? What happens if a video starts as academic but later turns out to be part of a commercial operation? Is the platform indemnified because it was "obvious?"
You're also forgetting that the platforms do not want to take down content. YouTube at least does a few basic checks automatically and makes heavy use of human reviews. I'm sure a few people would benefit if they quadrupled their spending on copyright review, but it's crazy to think that it makes sense for them to do this.
That’s how it works under DMCA. But some of the largest platforms go ridiculously further.
The way it works now on YouTube is that you get a copyright claim which they probably won’t tell you about, but will just steal your money, or a copyright strike if they want to actively take it down. If you contest it, the rights-claimer gets to decide your fate: if they ignore you for a month, or if they decide your counterclaim is okay, you’re fine; but if they decide to press the other button, your entire account is at least ⅓ of the way to being blocked. And there is no recourse! YouTube refuses to adjudicate. This system is insanity.
A copyright isn't owning a car, a copyright is more akin being the only person legally allowed to manufacture cars. (This isn't hyperbole, a patent on cars is control of the very concept of cars; copyright and patents are more similar than dissimilar.)
That's why it was supposed to be a limited right with a clear and simple expiration. No one should own the concept of a car forever, eventually you want other people to be able to manufacture cars.
Right, it is a limited right because it builds an artificial monopoly. Copyrights were intended to have a similar life cycle to the patent. It lasts for a few years, possibly with a single extension if you can prove certain things about how you are using it (that you are actually using it, not just squatting on it to prevent other people from working with it).
It is a bit broken that the term limits are so different today.
> a clear and simple expiration
> life of the author
> (at least in the US
I think you included several reasons it is not clear and simple. Life of the author is real hard to define and gets shifted by "work for hire" rules, especially because so many things subject to copyright beyond books don't/cannot have a single author.
On top of that, different countries have different definitions. The Berne Convention muddies the waters that "the strictest country's definition wins" but also provides carve outs for "when in my own country I only need to worry about my own country's rules" some of the time.
Different countries have different orphaned works laws, though the majority do not today believe copyright expires on orphaned works it just gets "lost" who owns the copyright. Most countries have "copyright is automatic" laws (and the Berne Convention supports that) and "copyright is assumed and must be disproven" laws (which again the Berne Convention supports). All three of these things make the question of "is this under copyright and by who?" far from clear. (As the article here goes at great length to provide just one example of such confusion and opaque expiration information.)
The world's copyright systems lost "clear and simple expiration" decades ago.
Cuba has been embargoed which prevents US owned businesses, as well as any businesses which operate in the US, from trading with it. An embargo is not an act of war, it's a way for market economies to apply economic pressure using their soft power. It's not enforced by the military away from the territory of the country placing the embargo and is instead enforced domestically using the police.
Large oil-producing countries that traded with Cuba include Venezuela, Russia (the USSR before 1990), China, and Iran. Market democracies are all pretty OK with the embargo, because trade with a country that doesn't recognize property rights is inherently fraught.
reply