That's kinda been the experience I've found in the open source diabetes space; several manufacturers have floated making things harder to hack, and we've found that actually showing them how many people use the reverse engineered API and would definitely go to their competitor is a really useful way of disincentivising that sort of anti-consumer behaviour.
Would love for sources / prior case law around this? I'm Australian and involved in reverse engineering insulin pumps and CGMs, and we are constantly worried about getting our butts DMCA'd.
Don't get me wrong, they absolutely can DMCA you if the hosting is in a foreign country iirc.
I was under the impression thr prescedant was:
Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd (1999), alongside specific provisions in the Copyright Act 1968.
The australian DMCA is called the TPM, it's more aimed at Bypassing, decrypt, or circumvent a digital lock or DRM (Digital Rights Management) protecting copyrighted material.
I do not think that phantom notes are encryption or rights management.
If you do your hosting in australia for your code/software, the US companies will probably have a bad time trying to convince the australian courts that access is the same as copyright infringement.
I'm not a lawyer, but i'll be damned if the 'vibe of it' shouldn't be a legal defense.
This is a pretty lazy post. Sure, the quality of code that AI produces has gone up. "Sloppy" means so much more than just "incorrect", though; it's bloating tests with additions that don't meaningfully add anything or actually test the code. Code used to be slow to write, quick to read. With AI, it's quick to write, slow to read. Thing is, that has never been the bottleneck. Often, it's a feature- you want to think before committing to an approach. If there is no barrier to putting pen to paper, you get... Slop.
What I meant to say there is, all the bloats are going away as we speak, is the bun rewrite a bloat? A slop? why would you call it one if it's not. What if we used AI in a way that produced genuinely better work than humans.
The bun "rewrite" is almost the definition of slop. Careless, unthinking, and wasteful. A huge architectural shift, with the claimed benefits already being available within Zig. It's not a rewrite, it's a port, with almost 1:1 mappings in unsafe blocks. It wasn't idiomatic Zig, and it certainly isn't idiomatic Rust.
I agree that there is no hiding behind the excuse that "it was a robot, not me" anymore. However, the author saying that this is an authentic reproduction of their writing style is not the brag that they think it is.
Finally. I love the idea of the Oura hardware, but hate the idea of shelling out $400 for a ring and also lock myself into a perpetual subscription. Now just to find the pytorch models, and I'll be a happy chap...
Microsoft still has OneDrive and Cloud access with the pirated version of Office and Windows. Still, when Windows 11 is no longer being supported, I'm switching to Linux.
reply