Well, they title is just clickbait, the article quotes Trump saying that he knows what a corner store it. Which is a weird thing to say, sure, but he certainly didn’t say he doesn’t know.

I see what you mean now, you were talking about what words people use, not whether the definition of the word program applies to something.

How is a mobile app or a function-as-a-service not a program though? They are clearly programs, at least to me.

That’s what the article calls “key sources”. There are many more below (Mara bar Serapion, Suetonius, The Talmud, and more under “minor sources”).

There are so many sources that there is more evidence for his existence than for any other person living at the time.

This article mentions at least 14 independent sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

You are of course free to dismiss all of the sources and have your own opinion, that’s perfectly fine, but do acknowledge that you would be going against established scientific consensus.

Definitely enough for a whole separate Wikipedia article to list them all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

That’s incorrect. Virtually all scholars agree that Jesus was a real historical figure, based on many non-religious sources.

Of course most of the stories about him are made up, but the scientific consensus is that he existed.

Then what did you mean when you said:

the output will always be in the public domain

It seems to me like a pretty clear statement.

I’m saying that the rewrite of chardet infringes on the copyright of the original work. That is neither MIT licensed nor public domain. It’s illegally reproduced and distributed copyrighted work.

That I never disputed, I’m not interested about chardet or whatever happened here, I’m interested about your comment that LLM output is always public domain, and if so, whether it could be used to achieve the goal of reimplementing a library so that it achieves the same purpose but isn’t bound by the original license, if you do it without infringing on the copyright of the original work.

That all makes sense to me, all I meant is that you are answering the relicense question literally, which I don’t think actually matters. The situation we are pondering is that someone wants to free a project from it’s original license.

They are claiming they did a magic trick with an LLM and now the project is MIT licensed. And you are saying that it’s not, it’s public domain. But the distinction is immaterial to the person’s goal. Whether the author is right or you are right, the project is no longer under its original license, and whether that is something that can happen is the actual question here, regardless if the resulting output can be licensed or not.

Yes, but what does that have to do with LLM output being not copyrightable?

So you are agreeing using the LLM worked? Because that’s what the author wanted: generate a freely usable version that is no longer bound by copyright or the original license.

You should tell that to Linus Torvalds, he’s developing the Linux kernel without using GitHub at all. I’m sure he will appreciate being told git is insuffient to develop a good product and write good code, the best practice is to use a Microsoft service in a particular way and nothing else can work.

Tell me, when I work on a project alone, who am I exactly requesting to pull my code and why do I need to use a feature of some git hosting website instead of reviewing, checking, debugging, merging, and reverting if necessary my change locally?

Why? What difference does it make if he packages these commits in 1 or 10 PRs?

Keep in mind this is a single maintainer project, there are no PR reviews. He could be just pushing straight to the branch anyway with no PR at all.

The “single pull request” is a merge release from 79 separate commits. It’s the sum of all work, it doesn’t mean all of it was changed in one go.

What I meant probably didn’t carry over through text well. I was being very literal because you were very literal – to show the problem with that.

Yes, obviously you didn’t mean it would actually be illegal in all countries that exist. My point is that the “zero-humans” naming also doesn’t actually mean zero humans. There is someone controlling whatever that project is.

Legally in which of the 190+ countries?

No he wasn’t. Although there was a clickbait article recently that implied it in the title, while in the actual article just saying that in theory it’s possible it could happen.

OP posed two main questions:

• why did Israel become an ally of USA
• why did Israel attack Iran right now

Saying that Israel is an ally answers neither. That’s information OP already came in knowing. Are you playing dumb?

How does that answer any of OP’s questions though? You haven’t answered either.

As bad as it is, it would still be an improvement compared to the US for them.