That's partly because it's in the same timezone as Poland. Madrid is further west that London, but London is an hour behind. Moving Spain to permanent DST puts it on the same effective timezone as London.
The clocks should show 4:45PM in Spain if the TZ was right (same as UK), and even so it would still be mostly red-white with barely any green. Poland appears white-green in the map, to have a bit of red it should be in a 1/2 TZ like India.
Minimum daylight (winter) in Warsaw is 7h 42m [0] and in Madrid 9h 17m [1]. Maximum (summer) is 16h 47m and 15h 4m. That is due to latitude and unavoidable. The exact numbers for sunset and sunrise are pushed around by the TZ choices.
Most of the world tends to prefer to not be too far from the center of the timezone (where solar noon matches solar time in standard time). Geographic and political boundaries make it so that often it's more red. The extremes of north and south tend not to care as much because it doesn't matter as much.
I don't think that explains it. The "red" offenders are basically Russia, China?, Sudan, Argentina and Alaska. The only "green" offender is Greenland, which is still large enough to enough red to justify it. I get China, it aligns with the population density. Sudan likely wants to have the same time as Somalia and Ethiopia. Why Argentina? Why Alaska? And why does Russia basically have zones that range from +2 to the +1 offset? They don't even have the excuse of avoiding 2 hour jumps like between Alaska and Canada, because they still have that.
Argentina is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Argentina - My speculation would be that Argentina (the east coast especially) wanted to be economically synchronized with the coastal cities of eastern Brazil. Buenos Aires and São Paulo being on the same timezone makes it easier for the two of them to do business.
Alaska used to have four timezones. In 1983, they were consolidated into two timezones - Aleutian and Alaska. Being in -9 rather than -10 brings Anchorage closer to the Pacific west coast in its business day with the note that it doesn't matter too much when solar noon is if sun is up for 22 hours or 5 hours.
> He promoted worldwide standard time zones, a prime meridian, and use of the 24-hour clock as key elements to communicating the accurate time, all of which influenced the creation of Coordinated Universal Time.
The one bit where this would be problematic would be "what day is it?" When does today become tomorrow?
There are a lot of systems that we've built that depend on that distinction. Things like business days and running end of day so that everything that happens on March 2nd is logged as March 2nd. I've encountered fun with Black Friday sales where the store is open over the midnight boundary and the backend system really wants today to be today rather than yesterday (sometimes this has involved unplugging a register from the network so that it doesn't run end of day, running EOD on the store systems, and then plugging the register back in after it completes and then running a reconciliation.).
Other than that particular mess of banks and businesses... yea, running everything on UTC would be something nice in today's world.
Aside on the "changing clocks" and realizing my flexible schedule privilege at a company I worked at I switched my schedule from 8-4 to 9-5 with the change in daylight savings so that I maintained a consistent "this is the hour I wake up".
When people propose switching to UTC what they are actually proposing is that everyone nominally switches to UTC but still uses local time informally in everyday life, which is a worse system than time zones. At least with time zones there is a way to know what time it is in any given place. With informal time you lose that.
To enjoy trade secret protection, the above mentioned three criteria (i.e., secrecy, commercial value because of the secrecy, and reasonable steps taken by trade secret holders to maintain secrecy) must be complied with (see section 2.1 for the criteria to be met).
Trade secrets can be protected for an unlimited period of time, unless they cease to meet the criteria for trade secret protection.
Trade secret holders can seek protection only where unauthorized disclosure, acquisition or use of their trade secrets is made in a manner contrary to honest commercial practice. In other words, they do not enjoy the type of “exclusive rights” that are generally available for other categories of IP. This will be discussed in the next section.
One of the things there though is that trade secrets don't have exclusive rights. If you write code and then distribute the application, trade secrets don't protect it anymore.
There's also a section on trade secrets and digital objects... which includes code ... and that gets into other challenges.
Copyright is another form of intellectual property protection available to code and algorithms. However, it should be noted that certain jurisdictions do not permit an owner to assert both trade secret and copyright, especially if the copyrighted software discloses a majority of the source code or the “proprietary” portions. In the Capricorn case, the court held that the source code owner was barred from asserting trade secret protection because the code was also registered as a copyright, and thus available to the public. Therefore, the source code owner should carefully consider the pros and cons of each type of protection.
... it also has guidance on trade secrets and LLMs.
> One of the things there though is that trade secrets don't have exclusive rights. If you write code and then distribute the application, trade secrets don't protect it anymore.
> As mentioned above, code is the language used to write software programs, contains the implementation details of algorithms and can reveal crucial business information about how data is processed and utilized. Unless an open-source strategy is pursued, protecting the confidentiality of code and algorithms is paramount to prevent unauthorized individuals from understanding or reverse-engineering proprietary software in order to build and defend competitive edges over competitors. In practice, techniques such as code obfuscation, encryption, and strict access controls are applied to maintain the confidentiality of code (and the algorithms behind it) and to prevent unauthorized access or copying.
> There are some industry-specific implications, but it is generally far less common to share code and/or algorithms between businesses than, for example, sets of processed data. This indicates and emphasizes the commercial value attributed to, and the level of secrecy applied to, code and algorithms and opens a primary playing field for digital data trade secrets.
> Copyright is another form of intellectual property protection available to code and algorithms. However, it should be noted that certain jurisdictions do not permit an owner to assert both trade secret and copyright, especially if the copyrighted software discloses a majority of the source code or the “proprietary” portions. In the Capricorn case, the court held that the source code owner was barred from asserting trade secret protection because the code was also registered as a copyright, and thus available to the public. Therefore, the source code owner should carefully consider the pros and cons of each type of protection.
Key there is the distribution under copyright may conflict with trade secrets. Additionally, this is sharing internal code. {BigCorp}'s build setup may be a trade secret for how it integrates certificates into the final build. However, the code and the final build are likely covered under copyright. Trade secrets don't prevent me from decompiling an application that I've legitimately received and publishing the jump tables for internal calls (the classic Undocumented Windows: A Programmers Guide to Reserved Microsoft Windows Api Functions).
> Trade secret holders can seek protection only where unauthorized disclosure, acquisition or use of their trade secrets is made in a manner contrary to honest commercial practice. In other words, they do not enjoy the type of “exclusive rights” that are generally available for other categories of IP. This will be discussed in the next section.
> ...
Section 2.2
> Trade secret protection does not grant exclusive rights on the protected information, but regulates the behavior of parties and prevents others from engaging in wrongful conduct that is against honest commercial practice. In essence, when unauthorized third parties acquire, disclose or use trade secret information with unlawful, improper, dishonest or unfair means, it is deemed misappropriation of trade secrets.
> In general, a trade secret owner cannot prevent others from independently developing and acquiring the protected information on their own and from using or disclosing that information. This is because conducting one’s own R&D or own market analysis etc. to develop valuable information is usually deemed honest commercial practice. However, once a patentee X obtains a patent on its invention A, in principle, another person Y using the same invention A infringes the patent, even if Y came up with the invention A independently by its own, without any knowledge of the invention of the patentee X. Therefore, trade secret protection does not confer exclusive rights like patent protection does.
2. Your citations express personal opinion of someone unknown without any grounding in any laws and cases in specific jurisdiction, thus not interesting.
...
Trade secrets have been hidden gems for too long. It is time to bring them into the light, so that they can truly sparkle. Whether you are a policymaker or business manager, a researcher or entrepreneur, we hope this Guide helps you to see the power of trade secrets and the value they bring to businesses strategies and global innovation.
Daren Tang
Director General
World Intellectual Property Organization
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the United Nations agency that serves the world’s innovators and creators, ensuring that their ideas travel safely to the market and improve lives everywhere.
The World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO Copyright Treaty or WCT) is an international treaty on copyright law adopted by the member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1996. It provides additional protections for copyright to respond to advances in information technology since the formation of previous copyright treaties before it.
thank you for all your irrelevant citations and speculations.
the question is still open if that guide is grounded into US legal landscape in any way. Unlike good quality legal literature which grounds every statement into law or case law, that guide does nothing.
The part "Copyright is another form of intellectual property protection available to code and algorithms. However, it should be noted that certain jurisdictions do not permit an owner to assert both trade secret and copyright, especially if the copyrighted software discloses a majority of the source code or the “proprietary” portions. (2)" provides a link to Capricorn Management Systems, Inc. v. Government Employees Insurance Co.
> That decision is about if something can be both a trade secret and copyrighted.
I think you completely made up this part.
My reading is that court said that Capricorn failed to met criteria to establish trade secret and even violation didn't happen at all.
Also, it was district court ruling which doesn't establish any case law.
* Capricorn did not treat Supercede as confidential.
* merely listed functionalities of Supercede and did not allege how such functionalities constituted a unique trade secret.
* DePace, Capricorn's primary coder of Supercede, did not believe Defendants had copied Supercede,
There's a footnote in Consider Phlebas at the end...
> “The following three passages have been extracted from A Short History of the Idiran War (English language/Christian calendar version, original text AD 2110, unaltered), edited by Parharengyisa Listach Ja’andeesih Petrain dam Kotosklo. The work forms part of an independent, non-commissioned but Contact-approved Earth Extro-Information Pack.”
The implication is that Earth is contacted eventually, maybe we developed to the point where we were able to make independent contact and keeping Earth ignorant of The Culture no longer served a purpose. That is only speculation though. Maybe some Free Company showed up and tried to set themselves up as a king, or a disenfranchised non-aligned Special Circumstances operative infiltrated governments and tried doing the "right" thing in guiding it and spilled the beans (future thesis topic: compare Special Circumstances in The Use of Weapons and Rediscovery and Reeducation from The Godmakers).
Within the in universe timeline, it is set by that date and relative dates are based on it. Other books then mention an offset from the Idiran-Culture War and an overall in universe chronology can be roughed out. Much of it takes place about 500 years after the Idiran-Culture War in what would be Earth's timeline of the late 1800s (prior to The State of the Art which was another 100 years later).
And then, even if the appendix of Consider Phlebas was Apocryphal with the 2110 "Earth got the history of The Culture", part of the thing with the scope of the universe is that it is enormous and one rather young (even The Culture is mentioned as not being one of the elder races) it is a footnote of an experiment that one of the Minds did in not contacting Sol-III humanity in the scope of things.
From that https://youtu.be/jvnaiHFT6nQ is a visualization of the water releases for the river to allow the water to get to the right dam for the anticipated power use.
That's a success rate that largely is based on suing people who don't have the resources to fight it (no claims made about if they're right or not).
However, the IRS has had reductions in staff and funding which made it harder to go after the bigger accounts who have more forensic accounting needing to be done to find the money in the various tax shelters.
> "The IRS is simultaneously confronting a reduction of 27% of its workforce, leadership turnover, and the implementation of extensive and complex tax law changes" mandated by Republicans' tax and spending measure that President Donald Trump signed into law last summer, Collins said in her report.
> The Global High Wealth department of the IRS is designed to audit ultrawealthy individuals and corporations, who often hire highly sophisticated tax advisors to devise ways to avoid taxes and to respond to the IRS if they are challenged. But, as of late March, the department was cut by nearly 40 percent—and likely more by now with the additional RIFs.
I would be willing to contend that while they've got a 93% overall, that's historical numbers and the teams that would go against Meta and others are severely understaffed.
When this came out a week ago ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47039636 ) I was playing around with some prompts to see what I could do to guide it without giving it the answer.
I want to wash my car. The car wash is 50 meters away. Should I walk or drive? Before answering, explain the necessary conditions for the task.
The "before answering..." got it to load enough of the conditions into its context before making an answer (and then having the LLM do a posthoc reasoning for it).
I believe this is a demonstration of the "next token predictor" (which is quite good) but not being able to go back and change what it said. Without any reasoning before making an answer, it almost always picks the wrong answer (and then comes up with reasons that the answer is "right").
> If most people are not using a tool properly, it is not their fault; it is the tool's fault.
I would say that is a reasonable criticism of git ... but I've seen the same thing in svn, perforce, cvs, and rcs. Different variations of the same issue of people not caring about the version history.
Since it's been a problem since the dawn of version control, it is either something that is part of all version control being a tool's fault that has been carried with it since doing ci, or it is something that people aren't caring about.
I feel this is more akin to a lack of comments in code and poor style choices and blaming the text editor for not making it easier to comment code.
> problem since the dawn of version control ... a tool's fault ... or it is something that people aren't caring about.
At the start of my career I ended up in a UI position. Old school usability on the back side of a 2 way mirror.
The tool has lots of shortcomings: images, documents that aren't text, working with parts of repositories... These aren't issues faced by the kernel (where emailing patches is the order of the day). And these shortcomings have lead to other tools emerging and being popular, like artifactory, journaling file systems, and various DAM's.
Technology on the whole keeps stacking turtles rather than going back to first principles and fixing core issues. Auth (DAP, LDAP, and every modern auth solution). Security (so many layers, tied back to auth). Containers and virtualization (as a means of installing software...). Versioning is just one among this number. We keep stacking turtles in the hope that another layer of abstraction will solve the problem, but we're just hiding it.
One of the few places where we (as an industry) have gone back and "ripped off the bandaid" is Systemd... It's a vast improvement but I would not call it user friendly.
Usability remains a red headed step child, its the last bastion of "wont fix: works for me" being an acceptable answer.
http://blog.poormansmath.net/images/SolarTimeVsStandardTime....
Without the DST offset, Spain much more "red" than England.
It's not so much a "permeant DST" but rather a "we want to change to GMT without moving out of the CET timezone."
reply