"Whistleblowing" requires something illegal to have occurred. It doesn't appear any of the disclosures being made about Facebook allege anything illegal. They are just disparaging insider information. Anyone who has worked in tech for any amount of time has signed an NDA. They are not nefarious.
> one who reveals something covert or who informs against another
especially : an employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or by other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency
Wikipedia further asserts:
> Whistleblowing is the activity of a person, often an employee, revealing information about activity within a private or public organization that is deemed wrongful – whether it be illegal, immoral, illicit, unsafe, unethical, or fraudulent
Arguably, nothing the NSA was doing was illegal. Was Snowden not a whistleblower?
> Anyone who has worked in tech for any amount of time has signed an NDA. They are not nefarious.
Non-Disclosure agreements to protect a company's legitimate business and trade secrets aren't nefarious.
But I'd argue that Non-Disparagement agreements or non-disparagement clauses that block disclosure of inappropriate personal behavior is, in fact, nefarious.
"Whistleblowing" does refer to disclosing morally bankrupt behavior that isn't technically illegal, and NDAs are nefarious if they cover anything other than trade secrets.
This is essentially just MTG limited -- draft or maybe team draft. Draft is my favorite part. Though I don't necessarily agree with the "things that make magic fun". Mill/Discard/Land Destro decks are fun, janky decks that rarely come together and it's fun to try and make them work.
Is my house a copy of the dirt it's on top of? Did the people who built my house build the dirt? There's a difference between "building upon" an idea and trying to claim you built the idea itself
Sure they build upon them, you still need to add your 1% of original insight. There was a first person to realise that you could make fire by rubbing two sticks together.
Anthropic didn't lose because they scraped (read) copyrighted works. They lost because they distributed copyrighted works directly via torrents. Those aren't the same.
That was Meta. The judge ruled in the Anthropic case that they infringed because they downloaded pirated copies of books that they could have otherwise purchased legally, and for retaining copies of those books as a central library.
A farmer was told he could only grow X acres of feed on his own land; feed that he had no intention of selling and was being fed entirely to his own livestock on the same land.
This seems to overturn that in part, but until Wickard is overturned, and the interstate commerce clause reigned in, there will be weird side effects of it like this.
Circuit courts may not overrule Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, this decision purports to rest on the “Necessary and Proper” clause, avoiding Wickard (decided on commerce clause grounds)
In particular, Necessary and Proper as it relates to the taxing power, which the challenged statute relied upon, having been passed decades before the scope of Commerce Clause powers began their expansion, let alone Wickard v. Filburn.
The party that wants the precedent reversed loses in the lower court (because the lower court is bound by current Supreme Court precedent) and appeals to the Supreme Court. The canonical historical example is Brown v. Board of Education, which was appealed to the Supreme Court explicitly to ask them to reverse Plessy v. Ferguson, which lower courts had relied on as precedent.
Additionally, one can argue that the state of the world has changed enough that assumptions made by the USC at the time of precedence require reversal.
Because those changes might depend on those other changes. Git merges aren't linear. They're branched. And PR reviews are meant to just examine the merge of 1 branch back into master. They're not really meant to review multiple steps along the same branch to make it easier to review.
There are so many times where I want to create 3-4 Merge requests that all build on each other along the same branch instead of creating one giant MR but the UI for reviewing them doesn't really work that way.
> There are so many times where I want to create 3-4 Merge requests that all build on each other instead of creating one giant MR but the UI for reviewing them doesn't really work that way.
it sounds like you want multiple checkpoints for review parts to happen on, but still only 1 merge in the end
I find LLM's particularly good at filtering and distilling a large rambling idea that I have into a well-formatted and coherent paragraph, and also removing any statements that would be perceived as overly argumentative or rude.
