I don’t think religion is the only path, but that it has functioned as a prosocial positive-sum cooperating/compassion technology/mechanism in many cultural contexts. Not without downsides, of course.
That many today relatively reflexively default to ~‘we can all be nice to each other; this is obviously the (only) moral approach’ without stated precepts/priors/fundaments upon which that morality is moored I think tends to implicitly borrow priors from Western Christian tradition, albeit incompletely and sometimes critically so. Sam Harris’ recent appearance on Ross Douthat’s ‘Interesting Times’ podcast was IMO an example of this.
This exhibits the borrowing GP mentions: your ‘should’ does not necessarily follow from the stated priors. Why is compassion morally mandated by the priors and not competition, for example?
The judge still decided this was the winning side. I don’t really see a problem with this, especially as seeing it is at the end of a deliberative process. By that time, the winning attorney may have a good idea of where the judge stands, what the ruling would be and is also incentivized to stay on their good side.
I’m familiar with this neighborhood. If this were my commute I’d probably walk often.
But:
It’s 42 minutes by foot one way, which is on the longer end for most people. About half of it is pleasantly walkable, the rest looking like no trees and along a busy street.
… For probably six months out of the year, the rest being too uncomfortably hot or windy/cold for most people.
And he’s probably wearing a suit and leather shoes every day, so you risk wet/muddy shoes, road salt, or dripping in sweat or rain. Mess up your hair with a hat in the winter.
And if you are going anywhere after, you’ll need a car anyway. The rest of Omaha is not walkable and quite hilly.
And he’s old, quite old. He’s been old for decades. Some people can do 3.6mi/day in their 50s-80s but most will not.
And his time value in literally among the… top ten in the world or so? And has been for decades?
I say all this as a relatively extreme walking advocate: for most people in some locales (including most of America), it just doesn’t make sense, and this criticism is very silly.
He’s Warren Buffet, so he could make this work if he wanted to. He could insist everyone come to him at his home while he wears pajamas.
But it’s not unreasonable to drive this commute.
And you can get a decent breakfast at McDonald’s too :D
I should have said ‘product development’ model versus just ‘development’ to be more clear. To state another way: Linux has no way, no function, no pathway to providing this. This is not really surprising, because it isn’t the work software developers find fun and self-rewarding, but rather more the relatively mundane business-as-usual scope of product managers and business development folks.
… And that’s all fine, because this is a super niche need: effectively nobody needs Linux laptops and even fewer depend on sleep to work. If ‘Linux’ convinced itself it really really needed to solve this problem for whatever reason, it would do something that doesn’t look like its current development model, something outside that.
Regardless, the net result in the world today is that Linux sleep doesn’t work in general.
Regardless of how it must be implemented, if this is a desirable feature then this explanation isn’t an absolution of Linux but rather an indictment: its development model cannot consistently provide this product feature.
(And same for Windows to the degree it is more inconsistent on Windows than Mac)
Same with any OSS. Up to you to validate whether or not it is worth depending on, regardless of how built. Social proof is a primary avenue to that and has little to do with how built.
Not only in the executive/enforcement, but in the actual impact of the regulation in practice as applied by millions in a distributed system. Regulations influence decision paths as opposed to encoding deterministic code paths.
You might be willing to, but the product might be more attractive to millions out there if they didn’t have these items. You can say that is about profit but it is also about making a better product, weighed by what customers want in aggregate.
Tesla announced they are adding it this week. Ford’s CEO expressed glee at GM removing it. There isn’t a CarPlay App Store nor downloads to get 30% from (or if there were, they’d appreciably be enabled by Apple’s platform as we aren’t in the habit of subscribing to or buying apps for our car today), and while we don’t know the licensing terms from the GM removal it sounded like privacy violations and extra subscription revenue are their motivations for dropping CarPlay. That doesn’t sound consumer friendly on the carmakers part at all. I think this field doesn’t line up with the overall thesis, squint as we might.
What you describe as pro-consumer is only pro to some consumers, because they come with extra weight, size, and case compromises that every consumer would non-optionally be stuck with. I’d agree with you if we were in some no-compromise world or if there there was significant evidence that Apple wasn’t designing these phones within an inch of their pan-dimensional budget (size, weight, durability, hardware, battery life, etc) and leaving a bunch of room on the table, but that’s an unfounded and easily disproven theory.
I’ve come to similar conclusions, and further realized that if you feel there’s a moment to catch your breath and finally have everything tidy and organized, possibly early sign of stagnation or decline in an area. Growth/progress is almost always urgent and overwhelming in the moment.
While I’m deeply skeptical of any attempt to define a commit message from the diff, if the context and motivation is truly captured in the Slack thread or other prior documents and available for summarization, then how many neurons are you really using on rewording what you already hashed out? Especially if someone would otherwise perhaps skip a message or write a poor one, this sounds like a great approach to get at least a first pass to further modify.