The remedy is only one part of the cost of lawsuits.
Discovery and attorney fees would be a big portion of the picture here. If there's no settlement reached, each party will have a right to collect and comb through documents related to the lawsuit. Further, they'd have the right to interview (take a deposition of) everyone involved in decisions surrounding the controversy.
That means, nVidia would (likely) have the right to start talking to people in HP, Intel, AMD, Oracle, broadcom, On semiconductor, etc. Practically anyone involved with kernel development and decision making around kernel development.
The US civil legal system is designed to try and force parties into settlement. However, when you have a major corporation with cash to burn, they can win simply by dragging everything out.
nvidia are in compliance, they are working around it with a shim, that is why he says the new guards are put in place to enforce the "intention" of the original changes. There is no case
That's not really how licences work. "Ha, ha I have a workaround that negates the intent of your license with a clever hack" is not a defensible position.
Unless your retirement plan is dying you at the very least need nurses to keep you clean, doctors to keep you alive and farmers to keep you fed into your 90s.
If 2/3rds of the population are over 60 none of those jobs can be filled with the number of people to keep even the top 10% alive. At that point soylent green becomes reasonable policy.
Magit is probably the easiest one for casual devs to appreciate.
"M-x magit" get a nice list of the status of the files in the current branch.
After you mark which ones you want to keep by moving up and down pressing s(tage) u(nstage) you just press "c c" and write your commit message. Then you press P and your git repo is up to date.
At a previous job the head engineer flagged the number of commits I was making as an issue since I must be wasting a lot of time pushing incremental changes. When I showed him that it took me about as long to push changes to my branch as it did to save the file he was flabbergasted that one could use git without pain.
> "M-x magit" get a nice list of the status of the files in the current branch.
Except it will randomly split your frame and show up in a seemingly arbitrary location - often obscuring what you're working on. I find the whole layout system in Emacs completely chaotic. I guess it comes with the flexibility (VS a fixed system like most Ides) nor do I have any particular solution in mind
I'm curious if anyone has tamed the weird inconsistencies of how new frames (or is it windows? Can never keep the terms straight) pop up. For instance a CIDER error buffer shows up using some completely different black magic than magit
There is definitely a system to it. Something like "split at the longest side of the current window" or so. I have developed a feeling for where my magit buffer will show up. 95% of the time I am right and my eyeballs already move where it will appear. Anyway, if you want to get rid of some window/undo a split: C-x 0.
To be honest I've never played with this part of Emacs. The way I use it I'm fine with the default. But if not it's possible to take control of Emacs internal windows management.
I have my Emacs setup to never split anything and just use the whole frame (window). That also goes for things like helm. Instead of splitting I prefer to open multiple frames and let my window manager, manage them. This really improved my workflow.
thank you !
I'll see how it goes. Hope it won't be too wonky.
Ex: In Magit when committing it now first shows a "changes" buffer that you have to kill and then you can get to the buffer where you write the commit message. Not a biggie but prolly breaks the original UI design
You seriously underestimate just how much _not_ having to tune your llm for SF sensibilities benefits performance.
As an example from the last six months: people on tor are producing better than state of the art stable diffusion because they want porn without limitations. I haven't had the time to look at llm's but the degenerates who enjoy that sort of thing have said they can get the Llama2 model to role play their dirty fantasies and then have stable diffusion illustrate said fantasies. It's a brave new world and it's not on the WWW.
San Francisco sensibilities. A model trained on a large data set will have the capacity to emit all kinds of controversial opinions and distasteful rants (and pornography). Then they effectively lobotomize it with a rusty hatchet in an attempt to censor it from doing that, which impairs the output quality in general.
