I bought two different Bluetooth controllers from them. The first one had a known issue with the shoulder buttons. Like an idiot, I bought a second one. Same problem. SteelSeries support told me it was a known issue and they wouldn’t do shit.
I refuse to support SteelSeries.
Read that fourth link and its links. Basically the Gates Foundation controls world health these days. If you don’t agree with it, you don’t move forward. Agreeing with it means you have to agree with Bill who, and this might surprise you, actually has no fucking medical training or education. His approach to lots of things really fucks shit up. It’s very debatable that the short-term impact (fighting things like malaria fairly well) is worth the long-term shitshow (see Gates attempting to lock down and profit from the ‘Rona vaccine).
John Doerr has a hilarious anecdote in Measure What Matters that he intends to be seen as the power of rich white dudes making shit up but in reality is very telling. Bono makes some foundation for shit in Africa. Nothing works. Doesn’t do the things it wants to do. Suddenly someone has the brilliant idea to maybe include an actual African dealing with the problems they’re looking at instead of a bunch of rich people disconnected from everything. It’s presented as a revelation! The power of OKRs! In reality it’s fucking money blindness. Would I wish Gates were more like Koch or Musk? Fuck no. Why are you telling me I have to have a serial sexual harasser trying to kill things that make the world better because he can’t profit from them?
I don’t know if I’d say “inherently hopeful.” Sturgeon’s approach to science fiction was “ask the next question” which is sometimes not so hopeful. I do think a lot of golden age and even new wave (which Ellison defined) is very hopeful. I think genres like cyberpunk and more modern interpretations of dystopian science fiction explore less hopeful situations. You also have stuff like “The Heat Death of the Universe” by Pamela Zoline which could be evaluated from many perspectives on hope.
These are great questions! Rather than pull individual citations, I’ll point you at these books
Your last point, suggesting that it’s possible to take DARPA money without intentionally developing weapons, is part of the whitewashing we’ve done of computing that’s incredibly wrong. Make no mistake, I am directly saying a majority of computing pioneers in the US are trash people while respecting their achievements. Their work was done explicitly under the knowledge it was for military purposes. Levine has a few great anecdotes about engineers watching protestors and asking for extra security.
Your example of Berners-Lee is an interesting one. He’s trash for modern opinions. I don’t know much about the military history, if any, of CERN, so I don’t know their culpability. Conway took DARPA money and architected DARPA projects. That’s her culpability, unless you’re able to show she was coerced and didn’t know about the widely discussed military connections scientists had to know to write their grants for funding?
Edit: fixed the Weinberger link
What about a death from a drunk driver is an “unfortunate accident?” It’s not an accident, first of all, because you have to intentionally choose to break the law and operate heavy machinery while blitzed. Second of all it’s not unfortunate it’s fucking preventable because you have to intentionally choose to the break the law and operate heavy machinery while sloshed. I’d even go so far as to say it was fortunate because the drunk driver killed themself instead of someone else which a huge consequence that has led to it being against the law to operate heavy machinery while fucking hammered.
“Gee we’re sorry this person did the thing we tell you not to do from before you start driving it’s so unfortunate they made an intentional choice to endanger the life of anyone around them including themself this very bad decision we tell you not to make was clearly an accident”
This is incorrect. You can relicense your code to whatever you want if you and all the license holders agree to do so. You can’t unlicense the old code, though, and if there are more license holders than just you, it’s probably more complicated than it’s worth.
have to rewrite anything AGPL
I’m skeptical this would actually hold up in court because if you wrote the original code and then wrote the new code, it would not be clean room design and would most likely be breaking the terms of the original license.
choosing non-free platforms is an individualist, short-term investment which prioritizes your project’s apparent access to popularity over the success of the FOSS ecosystem as a whole
Nah, I don’t give a shit about stars or followers. Had the argument been the endowment effect, I probably wouldn’t have commented at all. I have very limited free time and choose to spend it on things I enjoy. Migrating every single one of my hundreds of repos from more than a decade of collection is not something I’m interested in. I know this because I started the migration to GitLab when MS bought GitHub and it was a huge time suck that brought me no joy. Realistically no one is going to use my code after I die so who the fuck cares.
On the other hand, choosing FOSS platforms is a collectivist investment in the long-term success of the FOSS ecosystem as a whole, driving its overall growth.
I don’t think the FOSS ecosystem could scale quickly enough to handle mass exodus. If all the MIT and Apache 2 code left GitHub for Codeberg, I think Codeberg would die. But what do I know? If Drew DeVault wants to use their free time to migrate my code to the open ecosystem and put their money where their mouth is, I’d be happy to move. I just need all of the servers and random computers that I do dev on to have the remotes updated too.
The bullshit the growth VP was spouting about “creativity through random interactions” has largely been disproven and really only matters if your only goal is to have random interactions. Once the random interactions are over and the novel ideas generated, you have to go execute. People that worked at the agency credited with the big open office book talk to this day about how much of a shit show that stuff is.
I don’t understand why any of these people have any problems with any of this abuse. If one person is harmed in process of benefiting a large group of people, isn’t that effective altruism? Wouldn’t Nonlinear be able to say, “so what about us fucking our employees, we’ve made AI safer which will save forty seven quintillion lives that’s EA baby!”
Or do I fundamentally misunderstand effective altruism based on critiques of the founder’s support of Sam Bankman-Jailed?
If they push AGPL, then the code is still open, it’s just explicitly copyleft. Any GPL license imposes serious restrictions on what the end user can do. AGPL further restricts what end users can do. Copyleft is similar but different from open source. Basically all they’re doing is leaving the code open to view but preventing anyone from money off of it.
Honestly for people like yourself this is exactly what you want for privacy software. Copyleft with commercial restrictions is basically the whole FSF vibe. This is much ado about nothing; previously the code was unlicensed on GitHub which is much more restrictive than AGPL.
The book has pretty good details on this. If you’re looking for how to actually scope modules, do some googling for package or library composition ideas. That’s a pattern that’s consistent across languages.
You’re talking about two different things. In general, you should never be disrespectful of anyone because there’s no need to be mean. However, I can definitely criticize a writer for working on something terrible because they wrote it. I can also criticize a studio for releasing it. “Just following orders” doesn’t remove culpability especially when the writing is really fucking bad.
Please note I’m not talking about this movie because it hasn’t been released yet. I’ve watched a plethora of movies over the last month that had really bad writing.