From the README at https://github.com/unslothai/unsloth: "Unsloth uses a dual-licensing model of Apache 2.0 and AGPL-3.0. The core Unsloth package remains licensed under Apache 2.0, while certain optional components, such as the Unsloth Studio UI are licensed under AGPL-3.0."
What do you mean by custom LMStudio license? Your employer requires reviews of proprietary EULAs or do you try to get a custom licensing deal from LMStudio?
Interesting idea! Funny enough I tasked Opus 4.6 this morning with online research and to create me a bracket. I submitted it to my friends telling them I had AI make it. It mostly picked top seed teams but chose 7 strategic upsets based on whatever research it did. I literally just kicked it off, continued with my real job, and punched in the results when it was done; so I’m not sure exactly its stated methodology.
Can you let me name sub-areas? In some places there are unincorporated towns which aren’t showing on the map and aren’t nameable but locals would recognize and like to rename them. My entire county has 1 official city but lots of smaller areas.
I rendered this map from the OSM source with some filters so some locations could be excluded. Anyway, I can manually add any locations. Please write to me via the contact form with a list of locations to add
Very true. The trueness to the original text is lacking in KJV, which is the major argument against that translation. It is more written to be old English proper prose than meaningfully translated. Modern translations like ESV are much closer to source, although hard to read compared against others like NIV and NLT which are written for comprehension.
Hmm I’ve always heard that the KJV isn’t perfect but it is closer to the ESV than the NIV. These three charts suggest this[1]. I do know there are places where the KJV isn’t faithful to the sources, such as in the use of the word Easter for Passover in Acts 12:4.
It is a pretty translation, but harder to follow in my experience. I only use the KJV when talking with other denominations because it is more readily accepted than my favorite (NASB85).
The author doesn’t discuss any of the particulars.
reply