It seems to be a quirk of cr-sqlite, it wants to keep track of clock values for the new column. It's not backfilling the field values as far as I understand. There is a comment mentioning it could be optimized away:
I assume it would backfill values for any column, as a side-effect of propagating values for any column. But nullable columns are the only type you can add to a table that already contains rows, and mean that every row immediately has an update that needs to be sent.
This is a great point! But there's an important tradeoff here about human engineering time versus the "learning in the open" benefits; a PR discarded privately consumes no human engineering time, a fact that the humans involved might appreciate. How do you balance that tradeoff? Is there such a thing as a diff that's "too bad" to iterate on with a human?
I do agree there is a balance here, and that the ideal point in the spectrum is likely in between the two product experiences that are currently being offered here. There are a lot of benefits to using PRs for the review and iteration - familiar diff UX, great comment/review feedback mechanisms, ability to run CI, visibility and auth tracked natively within GitHub, etc. But Draft PRs are also a little too visible by default in GitHub today, and there are times when you want a shareable PR link that isn't showing up by default on the Pull Requests list in GitHub for your repo. (I frankly want this even for human-authored Draft PRs, but its even more compelling for agent authored PRs).
We are looking into paths where we can support this more personal/private kind of PR, which would provide the foundation within GitHub to support the best of both worlds here.
This leaves me with more questions than answers, how did these three companies come up with the idea of using that logo? Did they just independently arrive at same design (seems unlikely)? And how did the trademark registration process go for the second and third companies that registered it?
Turns out they used to be one conglomerate, but World War II changed that [0]:
> The Mitsubishi Group traces its origins to the Mitsubishi zaibatsu, a unified company that existed from 1870 to 1946. The company, along with other major zaibatsu, was disbanded during the occupation of Japan following World War II by the order of the Allies. Despite the dissolution, the former constituent companies continue to share the Mitsubishi brand and trademark.
I used to think it's cool the same company makes a pencil and an F-16 derivative ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-2 ), but alas, the pencilmaker is not the same company.
I'm tempted to write an small blogpost about this one with some explanations, as that blogpost is a bit old :D but there's a couple things I found in this rabbit hole I fell:
First, as some of you have noted, the 三 kanji means 'three' [0] and Mitsubishi means 'three diamonds' [1]. Hence, the traditional family crest from the Mitsubishi family. The concrete origin can be found around here [2]
Mitsubishi Pencil is the first one registering the three diamond logo, in 1903 [3]. Mitsubishi zaibatsu logo was thinner and a bit different then [4]. During the occupation of Japan after WWII, the Allied Powers (GHQ) ordered dismantling the zaibatsu and stopping using the Mitsui and Mitsubishi brands (among others) [5]. Mitsubishi Pencil was not part of the zaibatsu, but using the same name, it was in risk of disappearing. After negotiations by their president with the GHQ they were allowed to keep it if they indicated that they're not part of the zaibatsu [6]. Back in the fifties you could see "non-zaibatsu" under their logo in their products. [7]
The 'Mitsubishi Cider' made by Konyusha doesn't exist anymore but its trademark was registered by Mazda Kogyo (now Mazda Total Solutions) in 1919. No, not THAT Mazda, a different Mazda (Matsuda/Mazda is a Japanese surname, so, more confusion :D) Mazda Kogyo would have contracted Konyusha to manufacture and sell the product in 1919 [8]. In 2014 Mazda Kogyo transfered the brand to Mitsubishi Corporation while Konyusha was still manufacturing it, and in 2015 they changed their name to Mazda Total Solutions [9]. Haven't totally understood their message, but I think Mazda Total Solutions has ceased operations as of today [10]. Konyusha stopped manufacturing and selling the cider in 2017 [11]. I've seen somewhere that could be related to the Kumamoto earthquake of 2016, as that Konyusha's location.
Fun fact, there's is a cider named "Mitsuya Cider" [12] that has a similar logo, but with "arrows" instead of diamonds. When it started, as a carbonated water brand in the 1880s, it was part of the Mitsubishi zaibatsu, but it was split from the company a couple years later [13].
These pages[0][1] has more details. The families had three different emblems to start. The zaibatsu came up with the now famous three diamond design in in 1873[2], but there were no trademark laws until 1884, and many companies proceeded to use the logo. The pencil company first registered this in 1903. The zaibatsu finally got to it in 1914, but the earlier filing by the pencil company was honoured.
As for the cider company, sounds like they've been selling it like it since 1913[2], but registered it in 1919? My guess is that since it was a regional product with the product type in the name that's already established (like [3]), they allowed it.
The Kanji for Mitsubishi is 三菱, which literally means “three rhombus”. It is possible that they were independently invented, but the hypothesis on family crest crossovers still feels more likely
The design is much older in east asia, I've seen it on 19th century textiles and pottery for sure but I suspect it goes back a lot more than that.
The shape is somehow associated with the name mitsubishi, possibly through visual or phonetic punning that is common in pictogram-based writing systems and tonal languages. Mitsubishi the name is more widespread than this one family or this group of companies, and the symbol appears to have long associated with the name per se rather than this specific mitsubishi. Mitsu sounds like three, I don't know what the rhombus connection is.
That shade of red has a specific proper name in japanese (think like alice blue in english) and has long been associated with japan by the japanese.
I don't think any of this is a coincidence there's a connection between all this stuff. But I don't know what it is and I don't think the article author does either.
> a specific proper name in japanese (think like alice blue in english)
I hadn't heard of that one [0], the example that comes to mind is "Canary Yellow", but I suppose that's not so bound up to a specific cultural history.
Well I’m glad that TFA really explains the connection between Jinroku Masaki and the Mitsubishi family crest because otherwise I’d still be confused. (Or maybe it’s a westerner thing expecting the name of the founder to match the crests family in name)
It's not clear why the 3 companies got the right to use the same logo. Perhaps they could each demonstrate that they used that logo before Japanese law required for it to be formally submitted for trademark?
It might have, I remember attending a talk by Peter Chen when I was at VMware around that time, and I know there was some kind of collaboration. (I wasn't involved in record-replay at VMware, but I was interested in it due to some ancient work I did with userspace record-replay debugging, https://lizard.sf.net).
rr is fantastic work, mad props! And the multiprocess stuff in pernosco looks super neat.
Maintainers do not owe you this, in addition to maintaining the software that you can use for free. You're entitled to be upset, and they're just as entitled to say "please go somewhere else to vent, we're busy".
If they don't want to provide the best possible product and not accept outside contributions, they should not provide a free and open source repository.
Well, it may be legal to create such a painting, but (depending on details) it may be a derivative work, in which case the original work's copyright still applies.
In other words, in your example, the painter is not necessarily free to distribute their painting while ignoring the original image's copyright.
Of course, this is not about the works. This is about the painter, and it's mostly not about exact duplication of the work but about works based on their previous work. You know, like other painters do.
Ostensibly, they want to prevent OpenAI, and any algorithm from making works based on their work.
But, frankly, what they really want is not really that. What they really want is to prevent it from making any works at all.
