![]() It does make life easier, but it is not as important as some people make it out to be. ![]() TeX files are also just markup and easily git'able. Hordes of scientists (and type-setting professionals) argue in favor of LaTeX (or other type-setting systems) because you just write the content in plain text. Your reaction tells me, you think LaTeX is a styling tool, which in a sense it is, and that's what it is about, which it is not. Integrating a well trained ChatGPT into MS Word will help lawyers much more than any structured entry form ever could.īTW, the LaTeX quip was intended to make light of the idea of separating content and style, which goes way back. ![]() MS Word (or word processors in general) might not be the best tool for that job, but it is good enough. Therefore they need tools that support their use case. If I'm right lawyers don't care about your notion, they use language for something different than mere information encoding. That being said, that's just my reading of your comment and I could be wrong, which is kind of my argument here. I don't think it is and I'm in good company on that matter. You seem to treat the semantic content of a statement as if it is somehow static, objective, and oberservable. From what I read, I think you think that language use is some kind of coding with words where you have a deterministic relation between input and output. (b) Bob's own contributions to Version 1.1 won't be protected unless one or both of the following is true: (1) Bob had Alice's permission to base his "derivative work" on Alice's Version 1 and/or (2) Bob's use of Version 1 qualified as "fair use" (a complicated question in itself). (a) Bob has no claim to copyright in Alice's Version 1 and Then Bob takes Alice's Version 1 and modifies it to create Version 1.1: Bob's "original" contributions to Version 1.1 are themselves protected by copyright, which Bob owns, bu with two caveats: It's copyrighted on these facts, Alice owns the copyright. Here's A hypothetical example: Alice drafts a contract from scratch as Version 1 and saves it to a file. authorship" to qualify for copyright protection.Ģ. That's an overstatement: For "original works of authorship," copyright happens automatically upon "fixation" in a "tangible medium of expression" (e.g., saving to a file, maybe even just typing). > legal documents don't have copyright protectionġ. Heck if you sprinkle blockchain in you might even get easy funding but I think it’s more of a basic cryptography thing than a blockchain thing - at least it doesn’t need that level of complexity. I think there’s a killer app in just fixing this issue with a product that guarantees that guarantees all changes are properly shown from the start of a process to it being fully approved by all parties.īusinesses, lawyers etc would love that stuff. Tracking changes becomes a real problem when you get into many revisions and that often always ends up relying on a level of trust between parties to not override the tracking. Having consistent numbering and bulleting is a pain and errors can easily creep in. Yet there’s often things I wanted to do consistently in Word etc. Latex always felt like a beast for academics not for business. ![]() I’ve never been a fan of Latex despite writing some mammoth documents over the years. Sure if performance is a real issue then rust makes more sense than JS but I’m not sure that’s going to be hugely meaningful in most use cases. Not sure the language you choose matters as much as making the API usable by a wide audience.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |