It'll be interesting to see the outcome. I personally don't agree with that verdict. There should be copyright somewhere. It's not like computer decides to make music on its own whim, like that monkey who snapped a selfie.
Does it matter whether music was generated by pressing keyboard keys, or typing a prompt?
What if i write a program that makes an audio file by matching chords that work well together? What of chords and notes are randomly selected?
You still need a software engineer to review the code. It's naive to think that randomly generated code will work, and by "work" i mean not just do what it's supposed to, but also handle edge cases and be secure.
How about some AI music? You can make or download some in Suno, or Udio. There's no copyright for AI generated music as far as u know, but may depend on jurisdiction
A developer here, I usually list user - facing changes in the Changelog.
Even if the changes are not listed, general "bug fixes and performance improvements" is a worthwhile update too.
These updates can contain fixes to annoying UX glitches, or really speed up the app, if a new faster API endpoint was added to the backend, and app change is needed to make use of it.
You will also get security updates, to the app and its bundled libraries which is important nowadays.
Google does a lot of A/B testing, so listing new changes may be pointless as the new features may be available only to select few.
Also developers have no incentive to document changes. It's a hassle to compile a list of changes since last release, and people don't read the Changelog for every release, especially with auto updates on.
I'd be great if they could at least use an LLM to compile the Changelog
Even if you rebase you can still recover the original commits until they are garbage collected. You are generally safe as long as the .git directory isn't deleted, in which case your whole history is gone anyway.
Sounds like a flawed workflow, if this didn't go through at least code review. Was it committed directly to master?
Curious to know what kind of system relies on hashed not changing? Technically the hashes don't change, but a new set of commits is made. The history diverges, and you can still keep the old master if you need it for some time, even cherry pick patches to it..
It'll be interesting to see the outcome. I personally don't agree with that verdict. There should be copyright somewhere. It's not like computer decides to make music on its own whim, like that monkey who snapped a selfie.
Does it matter whether music was generated by pressing keyboard keys, or typing a prompt? What if i write a program that makes an audio file by matching chords that work well together? What of chords and notes are randomly selected?