You did, although I have no idea if OP is an affiliate of YC (IANAL but maybe you could argue the public API is a form of sublicensing the data?):
> By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed.
> IANAL but maybe you could argue the public API is a form of sublicensing the data?
Given that the license is explicitly identified as both sublicensable and transferable and includes the right to distribute, I have a very hard time seeing how anyone could argue that the recipient of data that YC explicitly exposes through their "Official HN API" isn't allowed to use it.
My data is licensed only to Y Combinator and its affiliated companies (I would have prefer it to be licensed it only for news.ycombinator,com), not any other rando that can access it via a browser or an API
Sematic (OP's employer; rebranded to Airtrain?) is a YC company. Not a lawyer but I assume that would be included in "affiliated" since YC presumably has some ownership of them.
But I do feel saddened and personally betrayed; I thought the licence I gave to YN was just for news.ycombinator.com to store and show my comments, not for any other purposes.
All HN did do was store and show your (public) comments.
What this other company did with that (public) data seems to me to be a separate issue that you should take up with that company, just like the fact that your public comments (which you explicitly gave permission to HN to show) have been indexed by Google, Bing, and probably thousands of other spiders, bots, scrapers, etc.
I'm curious how you expected this to work. Like if you only give HN permission to store and show your comments on the public web, then somehow no other entity out there will be able to do anything with them?
Yes, I expect it to work in the same way instagram works, for example. If a commercial entity started yoinking photos from instagram and using them for commercial purposes, shit will hit the fan.
Again, the fact my user data has been scrapped already doesn't mean it was scrapped legally. I'm ok with HN showing my comments, I'm not ok with anyone else than HN using my user data.
> ommercial entity started yoinking photos from instagram and using them for commercial purposes, shit will hit the fan.
Will it though? I would imagine Meta would block them and then posture with a C&D or a frivolous lawsuit, but if they share the phones you gave them on the public internet, they're publicly consumable right? What law do you feel is broken there?
It's not Meta that would sue them (although they would), it's the copyright owners (the users) that will. Photos or comments, the User retains copyright on their content, and only license it to Meta or YC for specific purposes. Yes, that means Meta/YC and their affiliated companies can use the content for other purposes than displaying it in a browser, but 3rd parties 100% can't.
Well, are you going to sue? Are you going to sue Google and Bing and whoever else? Have you even bothered to contact the people at Airtrain to ask them to remove your content? Have you contacted HN to have them delete your account and comments?
Or are you complaining here (ironically) to make a point, but you don't actually care that much?
Shit hits the fan because Instagram considers user content a golden goose, and they have a vested interest in not letting it get outside their control. Not because they feel a particular obligation to protect user privacy. That's generally been status quo for every social network.
HN cares a lot less; they're a tech comment site and don't actively discourage people using the dataset gleanable from the contents of the site for novel experimentation.
(Sidebar: I see "scrapped" coming up a lot in these conversations these days. Where is that neologism coming from? I'm familiar with people calling it "scraping" but it seems like the term has drifted for some reason?)
Anyone could (in a technical sense) scrape HN or access the data through the API and do whatever they want with it. It's unclear to me whether the license granted to HN by your use of the site gives someone doing so license to your comments (I suspect not but IANAL) but the general argument here is that this would fall under fair use. Certainly that seems the case if they didn't display the dataset itself. I'm not sure how it would fair though given they are displaying the content.
The difference is expectations - people buying professional cameras expect and are used to needing to buy additional gear. In this case, "shot on iPhone" is obviously intended to deceive consumers into believing something that isn't true.
My understanding is that the original Internet Archive library worked under the 1:1 lending theory. Then, during COVID, they decided to open up what they called the "National Emergency Library", offering unlimited copies of the books, which is why the lawsuit happened.
Roughly correct, but: the main issue turned out to be whether even the 1:1 lending was legal. That's what the initial ruling clearly denied IA, and contesting that is the focus of the IA's appeal. (The appeal also asks, in a small aside section 'II', that if the general idea of 1:1 controlled digital lending judged acceptable, that the ruling with regard to the temporary "National Emergency Library" expansion also be reevaluated in that light.)
Some of the language in the Cornell page implies to me it's specific to "preservation" copies, not necessarily other format-shifts for lending.
But the interactions of tradition, legal precedents, and different laws in different places are complicated, and subject to interpretation & various shifting balances-of-considerations!
That's why it's silly when armchair opinionators casually judge, "IA clearly did something wrong". There's a lot of room in the law for fair-use copying, even against the rightsholders' strongest wishes, and especially for librarylike activities.
Tesla is not gaming the system by having a good airbag system that only deploys when necessary (that's actually really good!).
Tesla is gaming the system by excluding accidents where the airbags don't deploy from the "Autopilot/FSD accidents" dataset, thus artificially deflating the number of accidents.
Agreed, but I am not the original commenter, I am making my own point separately from them. I agree with you that Tesla isn't gaming anything by having a good airbag.
Wouldn't the most obvious method of cheating be the site owner peeking at other player's hands and/or the deck? Which this doesn't (and cannot) prevent?
I guess I'm not sure what publicizing their PRNG is meant to prove. It shows they didn't cheat via a very specific type of cheating but there are several other potential cheating vectors.
Probably too unreliable to use in real life - for example, I suspect many crappy corporate proxies will block HTTP 103 responses as some unknown danger.
Unfortunately, it can be used opportunistically, as the readme says:
> Browsers that do not fully support early hints can be easily detected by adding a harmless dummy resource to preload that will not be blocked by adblockers.
Normal (i.e. non-sick) people don't need masks, this is good advice. As a matter of fact buying masks is actively harmful, because you are depriving people who do need them (the sick and their caregivers).
If the US had a proper supply of masks, it would certainly be nicer to see them wearing them, though. But you're correct that given how terrible the supply seems to be, it might be the best thing to say.
Disagree, I have serious doubts you could confuse the two. I can see almost no context where 'Riot (Games)' and 'Riot (Anti-Phish Company)' could be meaningfully confused.
> By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed.
reply