In the general programming industry over the last several decades, "artificial intelligence" has also applied to simple decision-making algorithms, even as simple as playing checkers. Arthur Samuel [1] was renowned for his work on a checkers AI circa 1959.
As a follow-on to the above comment, in AI there is something called expert systems, which is just a set of IF-THEN rules which emulate the reasoning of a human expert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system
Learning/inferencing/adaptation not included or required.
This is something I like about AI in the context of video games; the technology has improved, the complexity has increased, but the meaning of AI in this context has stayed constant.
The same can't really be said of AI in most other contexts, where the goalposts continually seem to move to whatever is currently just beyond our reach.
You really shouldn't call it “Apache <anything>” without the express approval of the Apache foundation. If you want to call it something other than “Modified Apache 2.0”, you'll have to come up with a new name.
Though what's interesting is that since the license text itself is not explicitly under any license, it's technically just under regular copyright.
LLVM explicitly chose not to create a new license (this was one of the goals of doing this).
The issues we faced were simply those of license compatibility and attribution for runtime libraries, and we chose what we saw as the simplest set of additional permissions to make those work.
(For example, if we didn't care about the usage of LLVM in GPL software, we could have avoided all of the exception related wording here. Instead, we tried to come up with something that would let them still be able to use LLVM without worrying about various compatibility boogeymen)
MPL2 requires that you make available the source of any changed files. Apple builds its version of LLVM off of a patched tree, and given that they're not particularly open about even the base revision of the public LLVM repositories their stuff is on, I can't imagine they would be happy having to publish those files publicly.
Yes.
We want folks to be able to keep their private chips private.
Past that, Mpl has some interesting baggage and requirements, and in the end, folks wanted something they all understood well, felt others would understand well, etc.
It's not a bad license, mind you. This was just the best path in terms of resistance, complexity, etc
Disregarding everything else pointed out in this thread, there's also the part where the website for the older name of the company, 1for.one, still lists Penny Kim as the Marketing Director: http://web.1for.one/digital-press-kit/
On their new site, the screenshot under the "HOW IT WRKS" section still references their old company name;"1for.one": http://www.wrkriot.com/#tour-section
One of their employees now lists "JobSonic" as their employer. Ironically, searching for "Job Sonic" results in the Jobs page for Sonic, the fast food chain. Bunch of rocket scientists over there.
That might mean Penny actually meant JobSonic when she called the company name "anti SEO". Amazing they replaced it with one that's almost as bad (1for.one). At least the new one (WrkRiot) is googleable...
Thanks. The WoT depends on not trusting the keyservers, but trusting that humans on the other end know whom to trust and get them to countersign each other's keys.
Take the github process for getting your public key for example. I as a user need to go to the github user settings (probably after getting a warning at the command line or wondering why the command line process is so disjointed) and find the tab for adding my public key. Once there, if I don't yet have a public key I need to generate one, which requires reading instructions on how to do so. Then I need to copy the .pub file (someone uninformed might not understand them fully yet and try to upload the private one by accident). This entire tango might be acceptable for you and I, but not for most people who are probably struggling on the first step and figuring out on their own what PGP is to begin with.
At the end of the day, this is just a really convoluted way of doing exactly what ssh-id-copy(1) does[0]. Hardly something my mother could do. What we're suggesting is building the ssh-id-copy(1) process into the browser as a W3C spec, which would allow me to show up on a site and quickly and safely copy the public key of my choosing.
It is precisely the lack of such integration with a distributed auth technology that has made centralized auth technologies like OAuth with Facebook and Twitter much more attractive than they should have even been.
