trelane

You are extremely unlikely to actually get someone to chat with your earnestly about this on this site. They will get downvoted, flagged, and mobbed by ten other people who want to vent their righteous indignation at your interlocutor.

You will have to know someone personally or read sites that don't just reflect back your existing world view.

Good luck.

Of course. Everyone wants the money they have to increase, the amount of services they receive increase or stay the same, and the money they pay to decrease or stay the same.

This isn't something special with taxes.

> Is that true and how is this not perpetual serfdom if you can't ever really own a home?

https://phillipslytle.com/a-review-of-new-yorks-response-to-...

Until 2023, some (many?) would sell off your house and pocket the difference, even if it exceeded the tax liability!

> You want comprehensive enforcement with reasonable penalities.

> You don't want draconian laws randomly enforced.

This depends entirely on what the goal of the law is.

Killing opponents' satellites comes to mind.

Not every target is on the ground.

Would be interesting to have, e.g. an interview about this, recorded someolace reputable.

Sounds like a Greg Egan novel. I had thought it was one, but it's different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clockwork_Rocket

It has sources (see my comment above).

Do you have corroborating sources? I (and others) would be keenly interested in them!

Not just. It has the origin as well:

"The new version of TECO quickly became popular at the AI Lab and soon accumulated a large collection of custom macros whose names often ended in MAC or MACS, which stood for macro. Two years later, Guy Steele took on the project of unifying the diverse macros into a single set.[21] Steele and Stallman's finished implementation included facilities for extending and documenting the new macro set.[3] The resulting system was called EMACS, which stood for Editing MACroS or, alternatively, Emacs with MACroS."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs

After Adobe's licensing/subscription shenanigans, I would have expected the license to be more salient in folks' minds.

I have seen enough atrocious proprietary UOs that I am not convinced your underlying thesis is correct.

The student could have just made it all up for some reason too.

I suspect if you're buying mad honey that's collected wild on cliff faces and then imported from Nepal, it is likely pretty clear to whoever got it that it is special.

Maybe kid could accidentally get a hold of it, or other adults that didn't buy it. However, from the article (as far as I could get before the ads locked me out) there is a type that tends to have this happen to them (middle aged men IIRC). So it seems to be intentional.

Dunno about AI, but I was turned away by the sheer amount of ad spam on the site

Remember Xandros? I'm old enough to remeber Lindows! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linspire

Just getting your money back doesn't make it work well with other operating systems.

Instead, buy hardware from vendors that ship hardware with the operating system you want to use preinstalled, and with support you can contact to get help if something breaks.

> research assistants or grad students in universities

These are not fully trained scientists, but rather trainees. As such, they don't get paid the same as a fully trained scientist. Like how a journeyman is paid more than an apprentice electrician.

Of course, they are also underpaid, too. Ask any grad student union.

> It's hard to replace this dynamic. Or in other words, the dollar value of the intangibles is so high that if you were to put a price on it, it would make your business unviable.

Yes, it's very hard to pay your workers a liveable wage if everyone else is exploiting their workers by underpaying them.

All you're saying is that we've built exploiting labor (foreigners, interns, trainees) into our economy.

Interesting. Citing sources (heh) would have helped here. I found more sources, and it looks like my understanding is wrong and yours is right:

https://opensource.com/article/17/11/open-source-or-free-sof...

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

Thanks for the explanation. I'll have to find a more accurate term for what I was trying to articulate, once I've dug into things more.

> licenses that OSI and FSF approve as FOSS are literally the same and they have to guarantee the same freedoms. OSI is just nicer with industry and have actual professional leadership.

OSI vs FSF has nothing to do with the point at hand.

The BSD license permits making proprietary forks. The GPL does not. Those are examples of the distinction between "open source" and "free software."

> people who got in FOSS as a religion

Oh no! Not religion!

This is a ad-hominem argument based on anti-religious bigotry.

> don't really understand the licensing.

Again ad-hominem.

Quoth Wikipedia [1]

> Free software, libre software, libreware sometimes known as freedom-respecting software is computer software distributed under open-source licenses that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions.

> [...] Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give end-users (not just the developer) ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their devices.

> The right to study and modify a computer program entails that the source code—the preferred format for making changes—be made available to users of that program.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

The requirement that those distributing the software give to their users the same rights given to themselves is the defining distinction between open source & free software.

It doesn't work for people who don't use Linux, true.

> what is stopped someone else from stealing their FOSS (clone and rebrand) and shipping it themselves?

Nothing at all. This is not stealing. The term is "forking." It's how GCC got un-stagnated (see egcs), and how we got the ecosystem of alternate wifi firmware (two examples that come readily to mind.)

This is also where Free and Open source diverge: Open Source lets someone block others from forking their fork, whereas Free Software requires that forks remain free to be forked themselves.

It would work for most Linux distros, since this means that it's (probably) open source and therefore the package maintainers could package it with the distro.

If your package is FOSS, having the distros ship it is arguably the easiest approach.

Looks like this is one of the things that Wray mentioned in https://x.com/jaredwray/status/2085084489408294921?s=20

> The alternative, visual approach in mountainous terrain on a moonless night, is clearly unwise for inexperienced pilots.

There is not only one alternative.

When presented with two impossible (per your telling) options for landing, you choose option C: don't.

> disclosing use of LLMs is just being transparent and honest. is it that hard?

Your assertion here is irrelevant to the poster's point.

You're focused on the "happy path:" everyone has perfect information and judges correctly. If the submitter used AI, they say so and the commenters on the PR agree. If the submitter did not use AI, they don't say they used AI, and the commenters on the PR agree. This is the diagonal elements on the "used AI" confusion matrix.

The commenter is pointing out that information and judgment are not perfect and they're concerned about the off-diagonal elements of the confusion matrix. Especially the "Didn't use AI, but some commenters believe that they did" element.

> How do you plan on maintaining your CD and DVD players when the new ones will be sold with a subscription plan like printers?

If you buy physical media, you should rip it to FLAC and put the original disc in a safe place.

Famously, the Linux kernel does not have a stable ABI for drivers. As a result, by far the majority of drivers are in-tree, maintained by the kernel folks as part of the kernel.

The Linux approach has the downside of not having the drivers if a vendor has not been working with the kernel community before launch (or for those who haven't upgraded to a kernel that has the driver, e.g. a LTS release).

On the other hand, the driver is maintained by kernel developers, not created by the hardware developer who is not getting paid after they sell the device. This helps avoid abandoned / vulnerable drivers, or having the hardware dev search for... alternative revenue streams, as in this case.

> You do have to install Linux yourself though.

I said "for Linux" for a reason

And shipping with Linux installed.

The parent was speaking in absolutes, that beyond just didn't work for anybody. A handful of examples is more than sufficient to disprove it.

On the other hand, you're arguing that the majority didn't buy it again. I've not seen any proof one way or the other. Do you have some?