If you do a lookup at WIPO brands database you can find "intellij" and "intellij idea" owned by Jetbrains s.r.o. but not "idea" alone.
Based on this only a judge can decide if it is close enough to be an infringement and could misled customers. Given the readme days eplicitely says it is not the same IDE as Intellij IDEA I would say it would be hard to convince someone customers are misled.
I am surprised not enough people are talking about the philosophical implications of these inventions. AI is the biggest attack on religion/human-centralism since Newton and Darwin.
> For the print library copies that Anthropic purchased and then converted into digital library copies, Anthropic already enjoyed entitlement to keep the copies in its library. The purpose of the copying was to keep them in its library but with more favorable storage and searchability properties. Copying the entire work was exactly what this purpose required. There was no surplus copying. The source copy was destroyed.
> The third fair use factor favors fair use for the purchased library copies converted from print to digital.
...
> This order grants summary judgment for Anthropic that the training use was a fair use. And, it grants that the print-to-digital format change was a fair use for a different reason. But it denies summary judgment for Anthropic that the pirated library copies must be treated as training copies.
Because simplicity is hard and often the result of careful thought. Anybody can keep piling pile of shit on top of pile of shit which is why that sort of code is so common in our industry.
> but it's irritating to perform a full row-to-column conversion through an inefficient, non-batched API in order to get the data through JDBC and into TMD
[...]
> In the last two years, DuckDB improved a lot. Importantly, the C interface now provides a batched system for both inserts and querying, which enables processing very large joins
That's why. Basically JDBC doesn't offer the batched APIs needed to get the same performance.
Pretty sure that is entirely an unfair comparison. You don't need a connection per thread either. It is common to have web servers handles thousands of requests per second with a connection pool size of 20. As long as the handler threads borrow a connection for only a little time and block waiting for a connection while other threads are doing their thing, it works out fine.
There is absolutely no logical reason why database pool sizing could be a reason for preferring fibers over threads.
The problem only arises when you have to worry about persistent state. As soon as you have to worry about that, you have to think about backups, replicas, disaster recovery drills and so on. It is much easier to solve for that can of worms for one system than three.
reply