I would love to learn why some people can self-motivate to exercise while others would need coercive interventions. Such as to build cities in a way that some exercise is inevitable.
Or put differently: is there really nothing that can be done to shift people into being self-motivated?
To rule out Alzheimers when you wonder whether your recent episodes of forgetfulness have an underlying medical cause.
That aside, some moderately effective drugs have recently been approved that can slow down the disease in its early stages. And even if you are no candidate for these: you can start organising the life around you while you still can. Like moving to an assisted living facility.
I completely agree. The WebAssembly multi-threading programming model with its reliance on the web worker API is a pain to deal with. Google’s Native Client had native threading support, why can this not be replicated in WebAssembly?
I think one of the reasons for why the GPL as once more popular than other licenses has to do with the fact that it was created for the GNU operating system, basically a collection of simple command line utilities. No one would think of using these in other ways than to run them on the command line (or in a batch file), which is explicitly excluded from the “derivative work” concept of the GPL.
Things got complicated once people put libraries under the GPL, which is when all the legal uncertainties cropped up about what constitutes derivative work.
That’s a fair argument to make, even though my counter point would be that first and foremost the (A)GPL excludes a community of developers who need to earn a living with their work. In fact, the FSF will call this “morally tainted”. That being said, the free software purists aren’t a particularly tolerant community.
And again, I actually like and endorse copyleft in the form of the LGPL. So basically a license that can co-exist with others and doesn’t force it’s ideology on other people and their work.
You’re basically using the AGPL like a “freemium” upselling business model. I’ve got no issues with that, it’s your property after all. Just don’t tell the world that you sign up to the FSF nonsense about software freedom.
And be prepared that this may not work out for you. The AGPL is particularly nasty and even infects across network boundaries (not tested in court though). No one with a sane state of mind will even come close to AGPL software - unless they’re a not for-profit entity.
Actually there is. The LGPL is sort of a middle ground. It still requires you to share changes that you may make to some library. But it won’t easily infect the rest of your stack, so it’s basically the GPL with the viral bits removed.
Let’s face it: the GPL is becoming irrelevant and is displaced by permissive licenses. Projects using the GPL are increasingly held back and are losing favour among developers. Like LLVM is a very active and innovative platform, whereas GCC is essentially stuck in its original scope.
Why? Because the world is more complicated than the FSF ideologues want it to be. Developers do not collectively or exclusively want to work for free and live a life of poverty.
Not to mention that the GPL is simply too risky and expensive to use in any commercial context. There are countless lawyers consulting organisations on how to avoid the viral aspects of GPL-licensed code. And since case law is scarce, more often than not the advice will be: avoid the (A)GPL like the plague.
The only meaningful and morally acceptable “copyleft” license is the LGPL, which asks you to give back without being the license cancer that is the (A)GPL.
Or put differently: is there really nothing that can be done to shift people into being self-motivated?