IAM for example is in house and integrates with every service. Sometimes in deep ways.

Is green room a word? I've heard clean room. And green field. Is it just an amalgamation?

It is. But doesn’t fit with the rest of the sentence.

“In a television studio, theatre or concert hall, the room where performers await their entrance.” https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/green_room

Maybe a green field clean room implementation :)

Its where the band can hang out before the show.

author mistook the word

That'll translate across copyright jurisdictions.

A woodworker is paid to work with wood. But the finished product is the worked wood, not a detailed summary of how the wood was worked with.

Does that... Not imply thinking avout what you are writing???

Everyone probably has thought "what was the person thinking when they wrote this". Now you know that they probably didn't think (and since 2025 or so, it might not even have been a person).

You and your employer should consider future expected inflation at the time of negotiation. You don't need a true up in that case to "break even!.

IRL most of the time there's no negotiation, you find out your updated salary when the money hits the bank.

At initial employment there is salary negotiation. Each COLA then automatically inherits whatever assumptions were baked into the starting number.

And hopefully the other candidates applying for the position have similar inflation expectations to your own!

Medium, substitutibility, basics of copyright law.

Fair point on medium - this was a lazy example.

Substitutibility probably doesn't apply here in the way you're implying and if it did it would likely be hampered by the 9th circuits findings about transformation in sony v connectix. Arguments here likely would look at rust not having a stable ABI, and hence not being inherently substitutable as a libray (grit-lib), less clear as an executable (grit-cli) on that side

basics of copyright law - the fundamental thing being protected is the expression... is a rust program's expression the same expression as a c program? I'd say generally not.

The test suite could test aspects of the architecture/design of the codebase that are not necessary for interoperability and constitute novel expression of a piece of software in a way that is not at all language specific.

By definition a test suite is about testing interoperability with the test suite. An HTTP test suite should likely test for whether response code 418 is implemented a particular way and while humorous it would still be an interop test no?

No, the git test suite is about testing the git codebase. If you want something like that, you need a conformance suite, which does not exist for git.

Even if our oppressors are ineffective, we must still resist them and not underestinate them.

What's fun is that it could return an array of false if all elements are different, and then that value is truthy.

That's because it can't literally reason, it has just been manually steered into those reasoning speech cycles.

Yes, yes. Does everyone still find it interesting to go over this point every time about how it's not literally a person with human reasoning?

Uh, only when people don't seem to understand it, or try to personify it. Which is quite often.

What about when they ask how you can take gold at IMO and solve research-level math problems without reasoning?

People “personify” their cars but I don’t think because they think cars have human cognition

People are weird about their cars and make major errors in judgement as a result (e.g. we tolerate incredibly high rates of people getting killed because they were "hit by a car", as though the driver had nothing to do with it). Pushing back on that is absolutely worthwhile.

Which has approximately zero to do with the anthropomorphization of the car itself. I could have chosen a different machine or tool to make my point.

> Which has approximately zero to do with the anthropomorphization of the car itself.

You don't think people talking about the car doing things has anything to do with anthropomorphising the car?

No, in general I don't buy this idea that if we start using awkward phrases like "died by suicide" everywhere or avoiding phrases like "car accident" (which, despite what advocates claim, is a literally accurate description of unintentionally hitting someone or something with your car) but avoid changing any of the circumstances that cause the behavior it changes anything.

That's a completely different claim from the one you were making in your previous comment.

> avoid changing any of the circumstances that cause the behavior

The normalisation of unsafe driving is the circumstance that causes the behaviour. Just look at how the cultural shift in how drink-driving is perceived over the last few decades has changed the rate of it happening.

Not in the same way.

That doesn't seem to be much more than special pleading without an explanation of how you think it's different.