> Bandcamp is good, it’s profitable and sustainable and it basically works.
If they're profitable then why do we need to play these games? Why can't we keep a good thing going?
If they're profitable then why do we need to play these games? Why can't we keep a good thing going?
Because that isn't enough we must have infinite growth.
They reach profitability, then they throw off dividends, which the shareholders invest in (presumably) new businesses.
NOT "they keep the profits to create infinite growth themselves."
However, most of the HN discussion on issues like this is for things that'll never happen, so I don't see any difference.
I’m not saying Lichess will do something like this, but have you heard the saga of the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan (ERIM)?
It grew out of the University of Michigan — as a non-profit. Its president and board spun off a for-profit subsidiary owning the majority of its work, people, and assets and leaving a small fraction for the non-profit.
Then, the for-profit entity was bought by a succession of other entities: Veridian, General Dynamics, and now MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates.
I only learned of this while working with a graybeard from the original ERIM during their General Dynamics days — he was still sore about it.
So never doubt a president/ceo and board if they’re really determined in going for-profit!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Research_Insti...
This language is offensive (to me [0]) and sexist. Feel free to use it if it really floats your boat, but you could get the same effect without the implicit sexism just using "oldster". You could also say "older colleague", or even just "person".
[0] and I don't even have a beard
That being said, if the person was an actual human being, and subsequently had a graybeard (as I do!) - would that still be offensive?
I don't intend to be combative, simply trying to learn!
But the term "graybeard" is known in these circles as a reference to an older, always male, programmer.
What actually matters is that they've been around the block enough times to understand (for example) that Rust probably will not solve every programming issue known to current programmers. Their gender and facial hair status is not really relevant. "Corner office grump" would be another term that I'd find entirely acceptable: non-gendered, unconcerned with physical appearance, but encapsulating much the same sort of personality that "graybeard" is attempting to evoke.
To respond to your descendant response to a sibling comment, he was not, however, a programmer: he was an engineer.
The OP is referring to a specific person (and used the pronoun 'he'). It is in fact not considered by any reputable etymological source as a slur or as a sexist term in any capacity.
The term is widely used by younger programmers in online discussions to refer to unnamed (and it oftens seems as if the name is almost not actually known) older programmers. I've seen it on HN, Reddit, Twitter (RIP) and Mastodon. It's not a reference to specific person, it's a reference to a perceived role.
Even if a person has/had a gray beard, why is that the characteristic used to describe them?
And it is sexist only in an implicit sense: it is obviously a term used to describe (a) only men (b) older programmers. There is absolutely no chance that someone says "I talked to a graybeard about it" to mean that they spoke to a (older) female programmer.
It's been programmer's slang for a very, very long time. At least back to the '70s.
I'm a graybeard, and I don't avoid using the term, nor do I find it offensive. It just means someone who's been doing this for a long time.
> There is absolutely no chance that someone says "I talked to a graybeard about it" to mean that they spoke to a (older) female programmer.
Since I've absolutely heard it used in reference to female programmers, there is more than "no chance".
In my experience, it's a bit like the term "guys". It may have been gendered at first, but it has largely lost the gendered connotations.
It's generally a term of respect for a more senior, knowledgable person.
> oldster
Isn't that ageist?
Sell the service to users and re-launch as a co-operative.
* Unlike many other tech foundations, it's a 501(c)(3) charity, which dramatically limits the ability of industry titans to buy influence — since donations are tax deductible and thus cannot be used to unduly advantage any commercial entity.
* The Board of Directors is elected by the "Membership", which is primarily comprised of individuals who have contributed the most towards ASF projects. It's a sort of co-op structure which ensures that the org stays aligned to the interests of certain stakeholders.
(FWIW I used to be very involved at the ASF but have not been active for several years.)
I've often wondered whether an analogous charitable organization owned by musicians could slot into music distribution, in the space of DistroKid / TuneCore / CDBaby — handling royalties, QC'ing releases, and bargaining with audience-facing distributors like Spotify, Amazon, Apple, etc.
But just because something is a charity with a Board of Directors doesn't mean it can't be looted in various ways. It's happened before and will happen again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/climate/patagonia-climate...
https://hbr.org/2022/10/what-happens-when-a-company-like-pat...
What's the source for the profitability claim?