> we began creating a more formalized operating model so that Gitea could earn funding through public donations, selling Gitea merchandise, and receiving paid commercial contributions.
This sounds in light of recent events like he’s saying “we faked having a community driven operating model despite myself retaining full control, so we could live up to requirements by diners and commercial supporters”.
It seems resonable that he surrender trademark and domain despite him having acquired it personally as it should rightfully belong to the community that the diners and companies sponsored. They where not giving him personally money and they where not giving money under the assumption that it would go towards him starting a company that would take control of everything.
Not exactly just a game, but the book from diamond age,
A highly sophisticated interactive book: “Young Lady's Illustrated Primer: a Propædeutic Enchiridion”
It’s obviously a fiction summarizing all the knowledge and education we have freely available now online and to some extent social media, and an iPad might be pretty damn close if you get all the right things on it. But still, childrens games these days are all focused on optimizing for intense attention on mindless content and accidental clicks to purchase other games that do the same, or pressuring kids to pressure their parents to buy skins.
I would love to have a “gaming” experience that instead focused on giving kids the opportunity to learn and use their knowledge in an immersive universe, and to support them in their development.
> This is a very bad idea and the perfect way to run your tech corporation straight into the ground.
I always wondered what it was that caused valve to be “run straight into the ground”.
Great to have this former disgruntled employees inside perspective. I’m sure it’s objective and aligns with reality.