From my reading, it sounded like there was some controversy around whether it was ready to be merged it not. It sounded like some people felt that it wasn't ready, but Linus decided to overrule them and merge it, saying it was ready enough and that merging it would help them improve it more rapidly.
namingthingsiseasy
joined 9 months ago
It can't possibly be that. We have to abolish trees - that's the real answer!
Also, another issue with what you're suggesting is that people have to memorize several conversion factors as well. Inherently, you only have to be able to convert inches -> cm and pounds -> kg, but unless you want to do even more math in your head, you also have to remember feet -> cm, yards -> cm, miles -> cm, square feet -> square meters, cubic feet -> cubic meters (phew, that's just all the length conversions), pounds -> kg, ounces -> grams, pounds -> grams, cups -> grams (for every fluid you might want to measure), litres -> gallons, litres -> pints, etc.
Or you could just go through the one-time effort of actually using the metric system so you don't have to carry this mental burden with you everywhere you go....
The problems with that are:
-
hardly anyone knows the conversion factor
-
other people aren't going to do the math in their head
That's on them
them == everybody in this case. Practically, nobody is going to do what you suggest - instead, non-metric users will ask metric users to do the conversion for them. And why should we be responsible for doing the work when they are the ones who refuse to use the system that 96% of the world has adopted?
How is this supposed to be considered using the metric system? If you tell someone that you weigh 80kg and he doesn't have a clue what you mean, then you're not really using the metric system, are you?
One is clearly more applicable for day-to-day life.
And yet, 96% of the world uses the "wrong" system....
Don't worry everyone, I'm here to help:
Garbage
Outlook
Hot Garbage
Outlook (new)
Shit-tier garbage
Glad to be of service! Until next time....
I only briefly dabbled with Arch >10 years ago. But it has always been evident that it is an incredibly powerful distro. The fact that its wiki is so extensive is a testament to how much people are using it. The problem it has always had is that most companies tend to support other ones (Debian, Ubuntu, Red Hat/Fedora, Alpine), so it never really had any corporate love. With Valve's backing, we can see just how widespread Arch could be if it had more money behind it.
Not that this is necessarily a good thing of course. Look at how money has corrupted Ubuntu and Red Hat. All I want to point out is that it can do anything that the most well-supported distros try to do. And the fact that it has done so without any corporate support is a true testament to how powerful it is.
This is quite cool. I always find it interesting to see how optimization algorithms play games and to see how their habits can change how we would approach the game.
I notice that the AI does some unnatural moves. Humans would usually try to find the safest area on the screen and leave generous amounts of space in their dodges, whereas the AI here seems happy to make minimal motions and cut dodges as closely as possible.
I also wonder if the AI has any concept of time or ability to predict the future. If not, I imagine it could get cornered easily if it dodges into an area where all of its escape routes are about to get closed off.
What can we do?
It's so funny that people are even asking this question. Go back a few decades (pre-Thatcher/Regan/Mulroney) and the answer would be obvious.
Every time we see people acting as moronically helpless as this, it's a true testament to how utterly slaughtered our psychologies have become that we don't even think of using the tools at our disposal (namely government regulation and anti-trust law) to take action against it. It is so unfathomably out of reach for people to think this way, and this is how utterly destroyed our image of economics and society have become thanks to the devastating policies that they pushed and adopted.
As overwhelming as it may seem, the most important thing that we can do these days is to make these kinds of conversation normal again. Sure, there are things we can do today, and we should do them, but it's even more important to win back the public mindset. Once we do that, it will become much, much easier to fix the problem.
Your comment explains exactly what happens when post-expiration companies like Google try to innovate:
Let’s be realistic here, google still pays out fat salaries. That would be more than enough incentive for me. I’d take the job and ride the wave until the inevitable lay offs.
This is why it takes a lot more than fat salaries to bring a project to life. Google's culture of innovation has been thoroughly gutted, and if they try to throw money at the problem, they'll just attract people who are exactly like what you described: money chasers with no real product dreams.
The people who built Google actually cared about their products. They were real, true technologists who were legitimately trying to actually build something. Over time, the company became infested with incentive chasers, as exhibited by how broken their promotion ladder was for ages, and yet nothing was done about it. And with the terrible years Google has had post-COVID, all the people who really wanted to build a real company are gone. They can throw all the money they want at the problem, but chances are slim that they'll actually be able to attract, nurture and retain the real talent that's needed to build something real like this.
I was surprised that comment this got so many upvotes, so I'll respond by saying that, with all due respect, I think your argument is much more fallacious than the one you are trying to debunk.
Yes, this is called an example. In this case, the author is using a particularly egregious case to make a broader conclusion: namely that if you release software under a "do whatever you want" license, it may come back to bite you in the future when it's used in a product that you don't like.
This comic is a warning to developers that choosing MIT/BSD without understanding this fact is a bad choice.
It does not ignore those situations. All situations are multifaceted and need to take multiple considerations into account. The author is trying to argue that people should take care not to overlook the particular one to which he is trying to draw attention.
Just because legal efforts have failed does not mean that they are not worthwhile. There may be many cases where people avoided misappropriating GPL software because they did not want to deal with the license - there may be cases where people were less hesitant about doing so with MIT/BSD because they knew this risk was not there.
Just because the author used a single example does not preclude the existence of others. That is a much more fallacious assumption that invalidates much of your argument.
Just because Tanenbaum didn't mind does not mean that other developers who mistakenly use MIT/BSD will not either. Also, it honestly shouldn't matter what Tanenbaum thinks because we don't know what his rationale is. Maybe he thinks malware is a good thing or that IME is not a serious issue - if that's the case, do we still consider his sentiments relevant?
It does not, in fact. Just because the author used a slang/slanderous term to describe the licenses he doesn't like does not mean that his logical arguments are invalid. Ad-hominem fallacies are when you say "the person who argued that is $X, therefore his logic is invalid", not when he uses a term that may be considered in poor taste.
Misrepresentation. The author is not arguing that they have poor morals, he is arguing that they are short-sighted and possibly naive with regards to the implications of choosing MIT/BSD.
My conclusion: I appreciate the author for making this post. People should be more aware of the fact that your software could be used for nefarious purposes.
So unless you really don't care about enabling evil people, you should be defaulting to using GPL. If people really want to use your copyleft software in a proprietary way, then it is easily within their means (and resources) to get an exemption from you. The fact that there is so much non-GPL software out there makes the GPL itself weaker and makes it easier for nefarious interests to operate freely.
(Not that I would ever release software under GPL myself. I think software licenses are stupid. But no license basically has the same non-derivative limitation as GPL so it doesn't matter as far as I'm aware.)