Are these the same people who say it doesn't work well? I've been experimenting with writing what I actually mean by that (with the help of an LLM, funny enough), and it seems to be giving me much better code than the typical AI soup. e.g.
- functional core, imperative shell. prefer pure helpers.
- avoid methods when a standalone function suffices
- use typed errors. avoid stringly errors.
- when writing functions, create a "spine" for orchestration
- spine rules: one dominant narrative, one concept per line, named values.
- orchestration states what happens and in what order
- implementation handles branching, retries, parsing, loops, concurrency, etc.
- apply recursively: each function stays at one abstraction level
- names describe why something exists, not how it is computed
etc.
This is no different from writing a style guide for your team/org. You don't just say "write clean code" and expect that you'll get something you like.
To play devils advocate, why do we have to layout a simple task in PAINSTAKING DETAIL to an AI model which is "PHD LEVEL" and going to take our jobs in 6-12 months?
Why am I still holding its hand like it has the intellect and experience of a new-hire intern that's coded one project in college?
I would never expect to have to layout every detail about "how to write code" to someone I hired to code on my team, at the SWEII and above level. (I.e, sub-senior but beyond junior)
In fact, often times backlog items are "fix bug in x where y is happening" or "add instrumentation to X so that we can see why it's crashing at runtime".
I find that generally it does alright picking up the style of what exists on its own, so this is more important if it's writing something completely from scratch.
I think also "how to write code" is a matter of taste. e.g. in many ways I think I and a Laravel or Rails developer would each think that the other person's code is bad. e.g. as a small-ish thing, I think test-driven development sounds like a massive waste of time, but type-driven development is a huge productivity multiplier and makes the code a lot clearer. I'm sure that I have massive disagreements with e.g. the Go maintainers about what is straightforward.
Don't worry about devil's advocate, if < 100 words feels like a gargantuan amount of documentation effort ("PAINSTAKING DETAIL"), well, there are certain stereotypes about developers (not) writing comments or documentation that come to mind. Whoever coined the term "prompt engineering" may have the last laugh (before the robots take over) after all.
It's not really moot though. The primary benefit of concise but robust frameworks like ZIO is that they are easy to read (like the program is mostly business logic with minimal syntax noise/programming language bookkeeping), not that they're easy to write (though that's true too). Metaprogramming also works nicely with LLMs because you get the expressiveness of something like Python (or better) while retaining a strong type checking layer to give a feedback loop to the LLM. In fact, it kind of shines with an LLM because you largely don't care if things like macros are ugly as long as they produce correct code to present to the typechecker/compiler, so it makes more sense to vibe code the metaprogramming layer to give yourself whatever you need to have straightforward business logic. Conciseness and direct encoding of business logic also helps to keep context focused.
Really this is all true with humans too, but IMO it's multiplied with LLMs because they are insanely capable at dealing with the guts of metaprogramming wizardry if they need to, so you don't end up in a world where that one guy that understands it leaves and then no one can possibly maintain it.
I'd expect it to actually do better in a large codebase. e.g. you'd already have an HTTP middleware stack, so it'd know that it can just add a layer to that for traces (and in fact there might already be off-the-shelf layers for whatever framework) vs. having to invent that on its own for the bare microservice.
I'm seeing plenty of 8 GB DDR4 SODIMMs on ebay for ~$20-30. AFAIK laptop RAM was not hit in the same way since it's not really readily reusable in other types of computer, and laptops don't generally have unused slots to just plop in more RAM.
"Linux" is really a family of operating systems, so people need to be more specific. It might run perfectly out of the box on consumer/gamer focused operating systems like Bazzite or SteamOS while perhaps requiring more work on something like Red Hat or NixOS. Those different operating systems all have wildly different approaches to how the OS actually works despite generally being able to run a largely overlapping set of programs.
It's like saying something works on "laptop" without specifying whether it's a Thinkpad or a Chromebook or a Macbook.
I can't comment generally but I use NixOS and have had no issues playing games on Steam. The setup was laughably simple, just `programs.steam.enable = true;` and Steam handles compatibility so well that I buy games without thinking "will this run".
Actually there was one thing I couldn't do but this isn't unique to NixOS. I tried to install a GTAV mod that allows you to ride your smart bike trainer in game: GTBikeV. The mod can be installed, but the Bluetooth doesn't work. This is a WINE limitation.
The stylistic 'E' actually looks nothing alike if you look at the picture in the complaint linked elsewhere in the thread[0]. Just about the only similarity is that it's vaguely cursive red with white outline. The 'E' is probably the most obviously different part.
It's immediately obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that it's a parody, so only a corporate lawyer could be so dishonest as to write that it's "likely to deceive and cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers or potential consumers as to the source of origin of Defendant’s goods and services and the sponsorship or endorsement of those goods and services by Kellogg". Their truck screams "this does not follow modern 'corporate' branding/style guides, so is obviously not approved or associated with a multinational company like Kellogg."
Quite interesting to see the product placement examples in the document though as evidence their "renown".
Are you looking at the Eggo logo in that filing from the 30s? If you look at the modern Eggo logo shown later in the filing compared to the egg roll trucks usage of it in “L’Eggo my eggroll” it is clearly so similar that it is hard to distinguish which “L’Eggo” belongs to the truck if you isolate them.
Parody and fair use are also significantly weakened in law when the use is commercial and without social commentary. Protected parody needs to be more than “I copied your branding style for my business”.
Again I’m not arguing that the law is moral or immoral, just that Kellog’s has a strong claim here under the law given that the branding as a whole is clearly copied from the Eggo brand, and that there is no evidence here that the food truck is trying to make fair use for the purposes of free speech, commentary or parody.
Is anyone going to confuse a waffle with an eggroll? No. But it is perfectly reasonable to think that the food truck is somehow associated with the Eggo food brand. Large corporations do stuff like operate offshoots and pop ups in adjacent niches. Look to IHOP’s brief marketing stunt rebrand to IHOB for an example.
I'm looking at all of what's in that document. The 'E' is literally the most dissimilar letter. It's very obviously distinct, and even more obviously distinct when isolated. In any case, they might legally prevail, but let's not kid ourselves: no one is going to be confused. The lawyer who wrote that is not just immoral in some abstract sense; they are concretely a disingenuous liar.
Arguing the "E" in the "Eggo" trademark and the "E" on the egg roll truck are so distinct that anyone arguing it must be lying is not a reasonable position.
My commentary on the 'E' is a response to that being specifically called out as the same in an earlier comment when it's specifically not the same if you actually look at it. The bit about the lawyer lying is what I quoted from the court document: that it's "likely to deceive and cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers or potential consumers" about whether this is endorsed or associated with Kellogg. And yes let's not kid ourselves, that is a lie. No one including the lawyer thinks that's true. Saying things that you obviously think are untrue is lying, even if you do it professionally.
I called out the E as one of numerous obvious similarities in the styling of the motto, not specifically. You are choosing to focus on just the E instead of the other similar elements taken as a whole. We can drop the disagreement over that specific letter and my argument as a whole still stands.
Here’s the only context I
Mentioned the E:
“The entire business is branded like Eggo waffles. The colors used, the font and stylistic “E” are the same, the white outlining of red letters on a yellow field is copied. It isn’t just the name and phrase, the entire brand is copied over.”
If it were just the E it wouldn’t be much of a claim. But it is clear to even a casual observer that the food truck business’ entire brand is based exclusively on recognizable elements of the Eggo brand.
You keep acting like Kellog’s is a villain here, but according to both parties Kellog’s attempted to resolve this amicably out of court. They went so far as to offer to pay for the cost of rebranding the truck as a goodwill effort and contacted the lawyer representing the food truck’s corporation over the course of months in attempts to solve it out of court.
It's based on recognizable elements because it's clearly parodying them; they are not copying the brand. They are not relying on people thinking there's an endorsement or association with Kellogg. They're relying on a chuckle. This stuff is all obvious to anyone with enough reasoning ability to pass the LSAT (or anyone who can pass middle school), so obviously any lawyer who claims otherwise is a disingenuous liar.
Lying like that might be par for the course, but that's why lawyers have a bit of a poor reputation when it comes to ethics.
I only mentioned the E because you did, and it's the most obvious element to display that in fact the font is completely different; the only similarity is "vaguely cursive". It's that sort of "clearly referencing X but obviously 'off'" look that parodies shoot for.
Parody defense typically relies on there being an underlying comment about the brand or product. Commercial use with no clear speech purpose will not be looked on favorably by a court. Copying someone’s brand isn’t a parody by the court’s Rogers test which will be applied in this case to determine if it is a legal parody.
The Rogers test:
> First, the Court must determine whether the work at issue is “expressive” — that is, does the work “communicat[e] ideas or express[ ] points of view.”
Second, if the work is expressive, then the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s use of the trademark either (i) is not artistically relevant to the work, or (ii) is explicitly misleading to consumers as to the source or content of the work.
There is no idea or point of view being communicated by naming your business L’Eggo my Eggroll and copying the colors and style, and I haven’t seen the defendants arguing that. So the second part of the test won’t even be considered.
There actually is case law around bad puns/rhymes as parody branding (Bad Spaniels dog toy shaped and styled like Jack Daniel’s bottle). The court did not accept it as fair use since there isn’t a comment or idea being communicated. It doesn’t matter that no one is going to confuse a dog toy with a bottle of whisky. “We operate an eggroll food truck” is not going to be accepted as an idea or comment for the purposes of parody.
They could argue that they are not actually copying the trademark, but the use of the phrase and colors is pretty damning even if you accept that the cursive is not the same (I don’t see a court buying that the cursive is different enough. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t a stencil perfect match in the totality of circumstances.) This argument is also mutually exclusive to the parody argument since it attempts to deny that there is any brand similarity.
Ironically, someone could now sell t-shirts saying “L’Eggo my trademark” using the exact font and it would be pretty clear fair use parody of Kellog’s lawsuit. It would be a comment specifically poking fun of them suing over that phrase and branding, and the absurdities of trademark law.
I’m not saying that any of this is right or wrong, I’m just saying that from a legal perspective Kellog’s is on pretty firm ground from all publicly known information.
The latest I can find on Bad Spaniels is that the courts concluded they did not infringe the trademark exactly because it was an obvious parody, but that it tarnished the brand because of the association with dog feces[0]. Notably, it seems that brand confusion is still central to the infringement question, and SCOTUS ruled that parody plays into that.
> Reaching the Supreme Court, the case took another turn in 2023 when the Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision, unanimously ruling that the Rogers test does not apply in cases when a trademark is used as a source identifier, rather than as a purely artistic work. As a result, the Supreme Court remanded the case for the district court to reconsider Jack Daniel’s counterclaims under traditional trademark principles.
In the food truck case, clearly they are using it as their own brand identifier (so it's analogous to Bad Spaniels), and clearly it is a parody, so clearly it is not trademark infringement as with BS. Unlike the BS case, they're also not tarnishing the Eggo brand, but just making a playful pun, so that outcome doesn't seem likely here.
You misinterpreted the outcome of that case. The ninth circuit ruling was in favor of VIP. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling and said the lower court needed to discard the rogers test as exculpatory for VIP/BS.
I’ll use a direct quote from your own source to explain how the actual ruling ended up losing the case for BS:
…the district court found that it nevertheless dilutes the fame and distinctiveness of the whiskey maker’s reputation, thereby still running afoul of the Lanham Act’s anti-dilution provisions. The amended order follows the Supreme Court’s decision ending the application of the more liberal Rogers First Amendment test in trademark cases involving expressive works used as source identifiers. In doing so, while finding that the parody of the “Bad Spaniels” dog toy decreased the likelihood of confusion with Jack Daniel’s by modifying the analysis of certain factors in a light more favorable to VIP, the district court ultimately found VIP’s parody of the famous whiskey brand to be a double-edged sword that contributed to finding dilution by tarnishment.
/quote
The Supreme Court case said that because they were using a trademark as a brand identifier they couldn’t argue for a rogers test exemption. In other words if you use someone else’s trademark, even as a riff or joke, in your trademark, the bar is much higher. L’Eggo my Eggroll is doing exactly that.
Your argument that “In the food truck case, clearly they are using it as their own brand identifier (so it's analogous to Bad Spaniels)” perfectly encapsulates why this is a violation once you grok the outcome of the court case. Bravo for phrasing it so succinctly.
But it's not tarnishment. In the BS case, they found that it wasn't infringement, but that they were using it in a way that would cause reputational damage (also dubious, but sure). Here it would seem the claim that it causes reputational damage is even more tenuous; the food truck is not portraying them in any kind of negative light. In fact, an even better fit is likely the Chewy Vuitton toys[0]:
> While it is true that finding a mark to be strong and famous usually favors the plaintiff in a trademark infringement case, the opposite may be true when a legitimate claim of parody is involved. As the district court observed, "In cases of parody, a strong mark’s fame and popularity is precisely the mechanism by which likelihood of confusion is avoided."
> In a similar vein, when considering factors (v) and (vi), it becomes apparent that Haute Diggity Dog intentionally associated its marks, but only partially and certainly imperfectly, so as to convey the simultaneous message that it was not in fact a source of LVM products. Rather, as a parody, it separated itself from the LVM marks in order to make fun of them.
In the BS case, SCOTUS explicitly noted that parody is a factor in determining confusion and therefore infringement[1]:
> But a trademark’s expressive message—particularly a parodic one, as VIP asserts—may properly figure in assessing the likelihood of confusion ... So although VIP’s effort to ridicule Jack Daniel’s does not justify use of the Rogers test, it may make a difference in the standard trademark analysis. Consistent with our ordinary practice, we remand that issue to the courts below.
And then the ultimate conclusion was that it was not infringement. SCOTUS ruled the lower court had taken an incorrect shortcut, but ultimately the answer (on the infringement question) was the same for basically the same reason.
I guess, but it's still distasteful, especially when it's a corporation saying it and the corporation is incentivized to exaggerate/mislead to an extreme.
> You also cannot "lie" about an opinion about what might confuse other people.
What are you talking about? Of course you can lie about your opinion. And the opinion involving other people doesn't change that.
I'll do it right now: I think basically nobody likes ice cream, they're all faking it to fit in.
My n100 minipc can serve over 20k requests per second with nginx (well, it could, if not for the gigabit NIC limiting it). Actually IIRC it can (again, modulo uplink) do more like 40k rps for 404 or 304s.
It could probably be part of the premise for a gag in a hypothetical Liar Liar 2 after Jim Carrey haphazardly finds himself mixed up in one 30 minutes earlier in the movie, so there's that.
What is the incentive for ad networks to suit you to whichever product best fits your needs? On price, if an ad network knew how much you needed something, why isn't their incentive to show you the the highest confidence-weighted price you'd pay rather than the absolute best deal?
e.g. if they know you absolutely need to get on a flight (dying family member or something), what is their incentive to find you the best one rather than gouging you? And if they sell that information to other groups so everyone knows to gouge you?
[0] https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/40782/where-is...
reply