Who says they didn't? There is only one party here who acted in bad faith, and it wasn't Hyundai.
In fact, this party has a — by now well-established — track-record of precisely this bad behaviour. They haven't even tried to hide their actions, only their individual faces. They've been public about their disdain for the law, for humanity, and their general evil plans.
And here you are accusing their victims of crimes you, like them, have no evidence of.
>There is only one party here who acted in bad faith, and it wasn't Hyundai.
Oh, so you were there present witnessing the arrests, and then you managed to check their visas to confirm Hyundai was 100% squeaky clean?
Then why aren't you with Hyundai suing the US government for abuse. Lawyers will have a field day with this if what you say is true.
>In fact, this party has a — by now well-established — track-record of precisely this bad behaviour. They haven't even tried to hide their actions, only their individual faces. They've been public about their disdain for the law, for humanity, and their general evil plans.
If you're talking about the evil Chaebol Hyundai here, then you'd be right, as it indeed has a very poor track record for legal violations:
### Hyundai Motor Group Controversies (Korea & International)
- *Korea: Embezzlement (2006–2007)*
Chairman Chung Mong-koo got a suspended sentence for embezzling ~$106M for bribes and family control. Exposed chaebol corruption.
- *Korea: Labor Disputes (Ongoing, peaked 2014–2016)\*
Violent strikes over wages and conditions cost $2.4B in production. Unions criticize Hyundai's autocratic management.
- *Korea: Whistleblower Retaliation (2016–2017)*
Engineer Kim Gwang-ho exposed safety defect cover-ups, faced retaliation, and sparked U.S. probes and recalls.
- *Korea: Family Succession Feuds (1990s–2010s)*
Chung family power struggles led to splits and nepotism allegations, highlighting chaebol governance issues.
- *International: Fuel Economy Fraud (2012–2014)*
Hyundai/Kia overstated MPG for 1M+ U.S. vehicles, paid $300M in fines and credits.
- *International: Diesel Emissions Cheating (2015–2022)*
Accused of using defeat devices, Hyundai settled for $192M in the U.S. and recalled millions globally.
- *International: Safety Defects (2010s–2020s)*
Engine fires and brake issues led to 3M+ U.S. recalls and $100M+ in fines, tied to whistleblower claims.
"It was the Hyundai Corpo that broke the law! They're stealing American jobs! That's why ICE targeted them! No, I have no evidence, only blind belief. Why are you even asking me for evidence?! What about when Hyundai did bad things in the past???!!?1?"
The one where you collect cash directly from users, and magically make handling that have zero overhead.
Credit card processing is hard... Go price out stripe + customer service + dealing with charge backs and tell me if you really want to do processing your self.
> you could do ca. 1200 prompts per double decker. Which is a lot.
If humans had evolved to do prompts (while retaining everything else that makes human thought human), that number doesn't sound that big.
OTOH, if LLMs had to do everything humans need energy for, that number would be waaay too big for LLMs.
----
Humans don't even have an efficient energy input system. How many of those 1.3M joules actually get assimilated? Silicon is a lot more efficient at energy, because a lot of effort has been put into making it so, and is fed raw energy. It doesn't need to process food like humans, humans already did that for it when they captured the energy in electricity.
----
I'm sure there's more ways of making the comparison more fair, but I doubt your parent was trying to prove their claim with such deep research. So let me try another angle: No human can burn through as much energy as the top hosted LLMs do for one prompt, in as much time.
> a vowel when it's between two consonants, and a consonant when it's not.
Not a hard rule, honestly.
Some Indian languages exhibit a blurring of sorts with Ye- sounds. E.g., in Telugu, the word for 'How' is 'yela', which is often also pronounced as 'ela'. TBF, Telugu also blurs Ve-/We- sounds similarly.
I belong to the class of people who believe in customising their tools as they please. So I'd have written an Emacs package to do this. But then again, this is Emacs, so someone's probably already done it. Oh, here it is: https://github.com/mooreryan/markdown-dnd-images
> bunch of hacks, such as containers, which are cumbersome to use. Firefox's "solution" forces you to switch Github tabs between personal and work containers constantly.
Rarely have I had to that. Until I added rules to open certain URLs in specific containers.
> Chromium provides separate windows with different profiles, and Firefox should follow Chromium here.
Absolutely not. Profiles are a poor "alternative" to containers. How do I add a rule to pin URLs to specific profiles? How would that even work, if it did? A new window for some links? Re-use some random window with the same profile? How do I switch to it? Switch back? Don't tell me to use the Window Manager via Alt-Tab. I organise tabs into windows by shared context.
Then there's the whole issue of sync. Profiles don't share anything. Each profile needs to be configured individually. I like not having to add uBlock Origin to every browser profile. I like not having to think if I have my password for this rarely visited site in this profile or another one. Or a bookmark. Or form info.
----
Just because containers have no use to you / you couldn't find a use for them, doesn't mean the rest of us also shouldn't have the luxury of using this feature. Feel free to use Profiles as you'd like. Leave what works for us alone.
Firefox's "answer" to profiles is to run essentially two (or more) copies of the browser rather than only copying the profile-specific parts of each profile. This leads to a lot of wasted CPU cycles and RAM and is a very suboptimal solution compared to what Chromium and Safari do these days, not to mention that the ability to create and switch profiles is not included in the UI by default and requires an extension to access.
I think you may be mixing up profiles and containers.
Profiles do have a built-in UI at about:profiles or by launching Firefox with -P, neither of which requires an extension. Admittedly this UI is a bit basic, but a better version is being rolled out (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-management). Running multiple profiles side by side does indeed involve running multiple instances of the browser.
Containers are an internal API and need an extension like Multi-account Containers to provide a GUI (though this is an official extension by Mozilla), however they don't require running multiple copies of the browser.
Just tried it out - definitely an improvement UX-wise, but it still essentially runs two copies of Firefox rather than only isolating profile-specific features.
>This feature is separate from the about:profiles experience, and we currently have no plans to change how about:profiles works. You may continue to use about:profiles if that is better for your workflow.
Adding the copyright notice to be in compliance, does not change the fact that the author has chosen a licence that allows anyone, including Microsoft, to do whatever they feel like, without giving back.
So eventually, with this bad publicity, they will add the copyright notice, and move on with whatever else they are doing, in full compliance.
Not arguing for Microsoft, rather the fact that people put out MIT licenced stuff out there, or similar, arguing how bad GPL happens to be, and then get all up in arms when companies do exactly what the licence allows for.
Microsoft might not have fully complied with the licence, adding the copyright notice to fix that, won't change a millimeter from what they are doing.
I don't disagree with the general point but in this case we're looking at what (seems to be) a blatant copyright violation. It would not be any more or less of a violation if the infringed license had been a more or less permissive one, because the license has not been followed.
Sure, the MIT is very permissive so it's very easy for Microsoft to correct their repository so that it's in compliance for the future, but they cannot correct the past. (Unless the original authors allow for it.) The MIT license, being so short, does not have a provision about curing infringements.
So Microsoft seems to be ok with the risk of being sued for infringement etc. That's not something you can correct with your personal decisions as author.
The point is that the author would not really be much happier if Microsoft had added a few lines admitting substantial portions of code were taken from Spegel. They probably will do this, but I doubt he will be satisfied with the result either way.
The comment above, which I mostly agree with, is that the point of the MIT license to permit anyone, including large corporations, doing this kind of thing. Since this doesn't seem like an outcome the author is happy with, maybe a different license would be better.
That doesn't mean that they would have completely ignored all implications of any other license. The author of the code chose a license that explicitly allows exactly what happened, other than Microsoft did not include a text file that nobody is going to read.
Everybody claims they removed the author's copyright notice. I checked many source files in Spegel, and none of them contain an MIT header with copyright.
I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one...
Why are you doing this? Posting in a way that suggests purposely confuses/obfuscates the difference between the general concept of a copyright notice and the practice of putting a copyright comment at the top of every file in a project, then immediately get corrected, then post basically the same intentional misunderstanding on someone else's comment elsewhere in the thread.
You:
> I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one...
Direct quote that from the file containing and requiring the copyright notice in derivative works that was not included in Microsoft's fork. This was also included in a comment which you have replied to:
> The above _copyright notice_ and this permission notice...
You have the timing wrong, I did not do that in the order you suggest :-).
I thought people were saying that Microsoft removed the copyright headers and replaced them with them, which they did not.
Microsoft replaced the LICENSE for the whole repository with their own, and thanked Spegel in their README. While this is some kind of attribution, it's not enough for the MIT LICENSE. I don't know exactly what would be good enough, I think having a copy of the Spegel LICENSE file somewhere in their repo would be enough (though possibly less visible than the line in the README, to be fair).
My overall point is that it feels like people are complaining a lot about what seems to be an honest mistake. And not just that: the way Peerd did it is arguably giving more visibility to Spegel than if they had just copied the licence somewhere in their repo. Peerd could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README.
The file titled LICENSE contains a copyright notice. That's what a license file _is_ in the context of software a LICENSE to use someone's COPYRIGHTed software. You must abide by the terms under which you are granted the license, otherwise you don't have access via the license, and are thus violating the copyright. They aren't two unrelated concepts.
Anything else is noise, they violated the license. They blatantly copied copyrighted works. They can't "oopsie" that away or claim it as a mistake, honest or not. You simply are not allowed to do that.
Suggesting that they "could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README." is wrong. They MUST include the copyright notice and the rest of the license. They don't get to choose whether or not to respect the license. And they don't need to remove the link, That's got nothing to do with the copyright issues. No one at Microsoft thought that call out was somehow the legally required attribution clearly explained in the MIT license.
> Suggesting that they "could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README." is wrong. They MUST include the copyright notice and the rest of the license.
You do realise that those two statements are not incompatible? If they include the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README, they are still including the copyright notice and the rest of the licence.
The MIT licence does NOT say that you MUST have it at the root of your repository in a file called LICENSE. It does not say that you must clearly identify the parts of the code for which you don't own the copyright or anything like this.
The part I was indicating was incorrect was your usage of "could" It's not something they "could" do, it's something they MUST do.
Like saying I choose to not be the richest person in the world. Sure it could be technically true, but the statement is incorrectly implying that it's up to me, or within my power to make the alternative choice.
It's very strange that you keep using these intentionally awkwardly phrased, misleading-adjacent statements.
The rest of your comment is attempting to refute something no one made a case for in the first place, which coupled with the rest of it makes it seem like you are just trying to argument-bait, so I'll tap out here.
> It's not something they "could" do, it's something they MUST do.
Well, maybe I just can't English :-).
They must include the copyright notice and the permission notice. Now I can imagine different ways to achieve that. They could use one or the other, as long as what needs to be included is included.
Depending on how they do it (while staying in the realm of what they MUST do, i.e. include the copyright and permission notices), it gives more or less visibility do Spegel. My point was that linking to Spegel in the README arguably gives more visibility to Spegel than alternatives that they COULD choose. And to make it very very clear: what I consider alternatives that they COULD choose are those that honour the licence.
They removed the attribution to the original authors and replaced it with their own name. So the copyright notice is not preserved. They could comply with the licence by adding back that attribution.
So, morality isn't a concern as long as you get something out of it, got it.
Too bad all you're gonna get is a botched and broken nation and years of misery, but that shouldn't matter as long as you get "something for my money".
And you're sure you're gonna get "something for my money" with people that make no attempts to even veil their corruption and lawlessness. Right? Say, are you, by any chance, "rich"? I mean, rich enough to be considered rich by the oligarchs, that is.
In fact, this party has a — by now well-established — track-record of precisely this bad behaviour. They haven't even tried to hide their actions, only their individual faces. They've been public about their disdain for the law, for humanity, and their general evil plans.
And here you are accusing their victims of crimes you, like them, have no evidence of.