The Prompt API [0] works in Edge, though it uses the Phi-4-mini model instead of Gemini Nano. [1]
Currently it doesn't work in Brave (at least on my machine), and I can't find anything online suggesting whether they plan on supporting the Prompt API. You can go to brave://flags/ and it shows "Prompt API for Gemini Nano" and "Prompt API for Gemini Nano with Multimodal Input", but it doesn't seem to actually work.
The Java language specification is open and there are multiple implementations. OpenJDK is the official open-source reference implementation, and many of the alternative implementations pull from upstream, but OpenJ9 is a different JVM implementation (though does currently use OpenJDK's class libraries to form a complete JDK.)
Before Microsoft opened-up C#, Mono was a completely independent alternative implementation.
Python has CPython (reference open source implementation), but also PyPy, MicroPython and several others.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Java spec is open, but Oracle certainly took the position—and the Supreme Court confirmed—that they own copyright in the APIs.
Has Oracle dedicated those to the public domain in the meantime? Or at least licensed them extremely permissively?
More importantly, is there a public body that owns the spec?
>the Supreme Court confirmed—that they own copyright in the APIs.
To use your own terminology, this is clearly and objectively false. The US Supreme Court made no such finding.
What the court concluded was that even if Oracle had a copyright on the API, Google's use of it fell under fair use so that making a ruling on the question of whether the API was protected by copyright was moot.
Your point of order is partially accurate. It was the Federal Circuit that held APIs copyrightable. SCOTUS did not disturb that holding, but did not explicitly affirm it either. However, your contention that this makes copyrightability moot is a stretch.
The majority opinion in Google v Oracle did an involved fair use analysis for the reimplementation of the API that really makes it clear that it's hard for anybody to violate the copyright of an API by doing a clean-room implementation and not have it be covered by fair use.
But who cares if there's a public body who owns the specification? The Supreme Court ruled Google's use of the copyrighted APIs fell within fair use. That gives, within the US (other countries will have other legal circumstances) a basis for anyone to copy pretty much any language so long as they steer clear of the actual copyrighted source code (don't copy MS's C# source code, for instance) and trademark violations.
I don't understand your thought process. You seem to be arguing that whether something has a proprietor is irrelevant to the question of whether it is proprietary. I cannot fathom the kind of reasoning that would lead to such a conclusion.
If the language is owned—by control and by IP—by a single corporation, it is proprietary.
Anyone can implement a compiler or interpreter for C# if they want, and there is a link to the standard for it. Is this clear enough for you?
Also, from an earlier comment you made a false claim and a strange reference.
You claimed that "most of" Java, Rust, C#, Python, and Go have only a single implementation. This is false. There are multiple implementations of each.
Second, you make a bizarre reference to "fad[ing] away like Pascal." Why do you think Pascal faded? I'll give a hint: It had nothing to do with being proprietary. At best that reference is a non sequitur, at worst it demonstrates more confusion on your part.
It isn't my reading comprehension that is deficient. You are talking in circles and demonstrating a remarkable inability to think clearly. I was just being polite.
Something being proprietary means that it is owned. It means "relating to an owner or ownership"; "of, relating to, or characteristic of an owner or title holder"; "used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right"; "privately owned and managed and run as a profit-making organization."
exFAT is widely used but it not being journaled has led to so many thousands (if not more) people losing tons of data, many of which wouldn't have lost so much data had they used a journaled filesystem (or even one with redundant file tables.)
If you need to connect a portable drive to machines of different OS's, there is no safe filesystem that supports read and write on both Windows and MacOS.
Alternatively, cloud storage works until the files are larger than the space you have left on Drive/Dropbox/OneDrive/etc., and local network sharing (on certain networks at least) is more complicated than what the average user is willing to put up with. In practice, many use USB flash drives or external HDDs/SSDs with exFAT. Yeah, people should have more than one backup, but we know in the real world that's not what many do. That requires them spending more time (e.g. configuring local network sharing or setting up an old machine lying around to be a NAS) or money (more on cloud storage.) In practice, having a cross-platform, journaled filesystem would lead to a lot less data loss.
Aside from exFAT, the only alternative with native cross-platform R/W capability is FAT32, but while it has a redundant file allocation table (unlike exFAT), it has a max file size of 4GB, which limits its usefulness for many workflows.
I agree with you. To be fair though, the concept likely seemed more reasonable in 1999. Hardware, browsers, and websites (and their front- and back-end services) were all less complex back then. Also less bloat. Not that things were more secure, but a popular tool may have had more meaningful review.
At times, complexity is worth the trade-offs. Modern C++ compilers are more complex than ones in the 80s and 90s, but the assembly code they generate runs much faster. Rust is complex but provides massive security benefits while maintaining great performance.
At times though, stuff is just bloated or poorly designed.
But it's not always clear how to intelligently design a project. If you add too many features to a single large project, it becomes unwieldy to maintain that large project, and the harder it is to audit this critical piece of infrastructure. Yet, if you don't add enough features, people will use packages from random devs, risking their own security, while harming the maintainability of their own project.
I don't know how we solve that problem. Alternatively, you could ask devs to reinvent the wheel and write a lot more code on their own (which they probably won't, either because they don't want to, or because the employer requires a solution on too short of a timeline to do so), but that could also jeopardize security. Many if not most web devs have to deal with authentication and encryption, both of which (the overwhelming majority) very much should not do on their own. Good luck asking a junior dev to correctly implement AES-256 encryption (or something equivalent or better) on their own without using existing libraries.
The answer is almost certainly some kind of mix, but it's not clear what exactly that should look like.
Right, but if Google's Android becomes closed source and a well-funded FOSS fork becomes available, that changes the situation. If Samsung, Xiaomi, Motorola, HONOR, OPPO, etc. all agree to use a new FOSS fork as their base, well Google's new closed-source Android becomes irrelevant. Samsung alone is large enough to be able to maintain a fork of Android, and a large enough percentage of the smartphone market that whatever OS it's running will be supported by banking apps.
> Samsung alone is large enough to be able to maintain a fork of Android
Samsung would rather not - they threated this card once before, while negotiating for Google to get rid of Motorola, and their bluff got called. Samsung tried to prop up Tizen as an Android alternative. Samsung since closed a number of its US OS offices - why sacrifice profits when they have a cozy arrangement: Samsung & other Android partners will continue to get the Android previews before anyone else: open source or not.
I agree with you: they'd rather not. If Google's Android became closed source to the public, but Google gave Samsung and other OEMs the right to modify it (including a hard fork later on if they desired), then I agree with you that they'd almost certainly continue with Google's Android — they'd lose nothing and eliminate future competitors.
My comment was in part addressing the higher up comments in the thread stating OEMs couldn't do a hard fork. My thoughts are that they have the marketshare that if Google's terms were bad enough, they could. They'd love to take some of the Play Store revenue, but currently dropping the Play Store would tank hardware sales as competitors would keep it. But if Google's terms were to get bad enough that multiple OEMs wanted to hard fork, that calculation could change. I don't foresee Google ever putting forth that bad of terms though, in part because of the option to hard fork.
Samsung recently deprecated their built in SMS/texting app and put an advertisement to tell us to switch for Google Messages in their app. They threw in the towel and not only will not maintain an android fork, they don't even want to maintain their own apps anymore.
> First Amendment protections are only available for U.S. citizens and to a lesser extent to permanent residents
Nowhere in the First Amendment, or anywhere in the Bill of Rights (or later amendments), does it state, or even imply, that the First Amendment is only applicable to US citizens and permanent residents. SCOTUS has repeatedly interpreted the First Amendment's protections as extending beyond just citizens and permanent residents in matters of freedom of speech and religion. While some rights, such as voting, are restricted to citizens, the First Amendment's protections apply to anyone within the U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship status.
The amendment is short and clear: "Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Even if one argued "the people" refers only to U.S. Citizens (on what basis, who knows), that would only restrict assembly and petitions. The first part is unambiguously comprehensive and clear: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" (emphasis added by me.)
> Nowhere in the First Amendment, or anywhere in the Bill of Rights (or later amendments), does it state, or even imply, that the First Amendment is only applicable to US citizens and permanent residents.
The Second Amendment does ("... the right of the People ..."). And the Fourteenth Amendment specifically refers to people "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are taken to apply to all persons in the U.S., citizens, residents, and otherwise, even though they say nothing of the sort.
If one wished to say that the 2A's mention of "the People" implies that the other amendments don't apply to foreigners, that would have perverse results such as denying all due process to foreigners. The contrary is true. Therefore the other protections do apply to foreigners except for the fact that foreigners can be expelled, and there is no protection against that (in principle not even due process protections against removal except as granted by statute).
The Constitution is not just what's written on it but what the courts have said in their interpretations. I'm quite sure that the 1A does not protect foreigners against removal for their speech is not controversial in legal circles as a statement of actual jurisprudence.
Some fair points. Courts have ruled Congress can make laws concerning foreign residents that would be unconstitutional if applied to domestic residents and citizens. They generally can't deny someone their Constitutional rights once already inside the US though. But since deportation isn't a criminal conviction (and rejection at the border especially isn't), it's conceivable that they could deny someone entry for a variety of reasons.
So perhaps not a violation of the Constitution. Though if the scientist's claims that he was denied entry because he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy, then it certainly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, and much of what the government claims it stands for. Is it legal? Perhaps. Will it cause long-standing damage to US soft-power and the ability of US organizations to recruit world-class scientists? Quite possibly.
> Though if the scientist's claims that he was denied entry because he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy, then it certainly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, and much of what the government claims it stands for.
That's an "if". We don't know what the CBP agent saw. But let's assume it's harmless, then I agree that it's damaging to the Administration's brand, but I also wouldn't agree (yet) that it happened because of Trump's orders.
> Is it legal? Perhaps.
Current law gives the executive branch the power to turn away foreigners for almost any reason.
> Will it cause long-standing damage to US soft-power and the ability of US organizations to recruit world-class scientists? Quite possibly.
Almost certainly, especially if neither CBP makes a more useful statement nor the WH comes out and clears things up. It's entirely possible that the WH will not take notice and that CBP doesn't want to engage the public on this.
Some years ago the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission started going into convention venues in Texas and arresting anyone they could argue was publicly intoxicated. That led to a spate of conventions boycotting the state until the TABC backed down.
Yes, though many of the constitutional rights do apply to all people, not just The People, it's just that there is one right that foreigners definitely don't have in any country in the world: the right to enter and stay in any country other than their own.
Having a browser written entirely (or mostly) in a memory safe language.
LadyBird is now using some Swift, but most of the code is still C++. The browser, while extremely impressive (and I’m very thankful it exists), has a ways to go before it’s a true replacement for Chromium/Blink, Firefox/Gecko or Safari/WebKit, and rewriting all the existing code in Swift would be a massive undertaking.
Chromium and Firefox also use some Rust, but re-writing those browsers entirely in it would be an even larger undertaking.
In contrast, a simpler browser spec would make it far easier to create a brand new browser in a memory safe language. Not only would this massively improve security on all operating systems as the browser is a huge vector for exploits, it’d also allow for the creation of new, more secure operating systems. Currently, arguably the biggest blocker for using something like RedoxOS (an OS written in Rust) is that it doesn’t have a web browser that can actually work for a lot of the web. But if the web browser spec were simpler, it’d be much easier to create one and then use that OS.
Obviously we can’t go back in time and make a simpler web-spec, and removing features is a terrible idea as it’d break existing websites. I do think, though, that it’s fair to think very hard before adding new features. I think a complete feature freeze would be overkill — some new features could legitimately make web development simpler and cleaner for many webdevs. I do think there needs to be some thought as to what the end-goal for web browsers is. Is there one? Or will we forever continue to add new features at the current pace? If so, the hopes of building a new, more secure browser are dim. And personally I’d prefer a more secure browser to one with more features.
As a comparison, C++ has been adding plenty of new features, but nearly no devs are aware of the full feature set, and despite the goal of making things simpler, I think many devs are as lost as ever with it, as they still have to interface with code written in old and different manners. On the web dev side, some JS and CSS features do legitimately simplify development and make things easier, but I think it’s fair to say that’s not the case for all new features added.
As of 2018, 94% of the US population lived in an area where charging an EV would emit less than a >50mpg car. In terms of electricity grid regions, an EV has lower emissions than a 50 mpg gasoline vehicle in 85% of them. [1] Yes, most of the US is still powered by fossil fuels, but ICE tailpipe emissions are very different than power plant emissions.
As for why switching to EVs is preferred to sticking with gas cars, aside from climate change, tailpipe emissions from ICE vehicles cause ∼200,000 early deaths to occur in the U.S. each year [2] (old data, but average MPG of vehicles in the US has barely changed, though particulate matter is better filtered, though there are more vehicles and annual vehicle miles traveled in the US has increased. Hard to pin an exact number without newer research, but without any doubt many thousands are dying from the pollution.)
As far as climate change goes, over a quarter comes from transportation in the US [3]. EVs alone won't take that to single numbers, but halving transportation emissions would still be significant progress.
As far as
> The light is weak for many months of the year, and wind power is apparently way too expensive if they remove the subsidies (weird!)
Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of global GDP in 2022 [4]. 70% of energy subsidies go towards fossil fuels (admittedly not the case in the US though.) [5] But subsidies aside, solar and wind is very price competitive with gas (and often far cheaper than coal) [6].
There's also $24.662 trillion in externalities for energy and transport (equivalent to 28.7% of global GDP) [7]. So sticking with ICE cars and fossil fuels is unlikely to be a smart decision from a financial perspective.
There is no comparable alternative to the Internet Archive though. They've gotten involved in several lawsuits and their future is far from guaranteed. They're an incredibly important organization, but I think it's too important of a project to be limited to one organization, or even one country or region of the earth. A solar flare could destroy a lot of history.
I don't know that the economics of having multiple Internet Archive-like organizations is currently feasible (I imagine getting funding for one of them is hard enough), but even a partial offline mirror hosted someplace else would be nice. Maybe to save space they could take the oldest version of a page, the newest, and the midmost version timewise, discarding all other versions. They could also heavily compress images, video and audio to save storage space (would increase processing costs, but if willing to throw out quality, could compress quickly and still save a bunch of space. E.g. downscale all videos to 480p and use veryfast preset and CRF 28 with ffmpeg. Even 240p is a lot better than nothing. A pixelated form of history is better than no history.)
Currently it doesn't work in Brave (at least on my machine), and I can't find anything online suggesting whether they plan on supporting the Prompt API. You can go to brave://flags/ and it shows "Prompt API for Gemini Nano" and "Prompt API for Gemini Nano with Multimodal Input", but it doesn't seem to actually work.
0. https://chromestatus.com/feature/5134603979063296
1. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/web-platfor...