> Karma has some problems too, and could no doubt do with some adjustments, but I think that it's more useful to have it than not.
I agree that it could use adjustments.
Real-life karma is a good thing, but karma points are mostly a bandaid for "no other way of trying to keep trolling and other poor quality communication down".
The serious downside of having karma is providing undeserved power and prestige via a high status and ability to have certain actions to those that don't necessarily deserve it.
But the only way to get rid of it and get similar benefit is to have a community that can elect users into power that deserve it, like StackOverflow's elections. It would be even better if you gave the power to everyone and they were all wise enough and dependable enough to wield that power as needed, but that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
> That's the compiler's business. I don't care one way or the other about its implementation details.
Actually, you do- for at least several reasons.
1. If the runtime or compiler were to have problems with interdependencies.
2. If the compiled code that will actually be executed or the application or service itself across cores, processors, VMs, geography at runtime takes longer to run because of its compiler implementation, that might make it more expensive or too slow for your needs or to compete.
> If you cannot figure out in one minute what a C++ file is doing, assume the code is incorrect.
This statement at first resonated with me, and then I thought about it: this doesn't reduce the complexity of the overall application or service, it just means that one file is simple. You could have 10,000 files instead of 1 much shorter one; is that any more simple?
> I don't think JavaScript's syntax is a selling point
Under "Why OCaml?" on the Reason page, it states, "OCaml has a very mature (and still growing) ecosystem for targeting browser and JavaScript environments with a focus on language interoperability and integration with existing JavaScript code," and "Reason‘s non-invasive approach to the OCaml compiler allows Reason code to take advantage of all of the existing OCaml compiler optimizations/backends such as ... and even JavaScript compilation."
It seems like what's being said is that one of the main goals for Reason is to integrate with JavaScript, and it would seem to make sense instead of changing between language syntaxes, you'd want more in common between them, so it makes sense why they are similar. I'm confused as to why you seem to be trying to distance Reason and OCaml from JavaScript, when it definitely seems like the similarity with and integration with JavaScript would be a driving factor in Reason's development now, even if maybe it wasn't in the beginning.
"If the antibodies already exist within your organization to destroy new endeavors, you need to go outside of the organization to overcome them."
Another option is to just fire or move employees that are resistant to change and innovation to other parts of the company where their resistance to change might be more helpful. I don't understand why this option is not considered or discussed.
> CIA's policy is probably controlled by someone else, and that's where changes need to be made because I like to think they don't come up with the stuff on their own.
Beyond you liking to think that, what evidence do you have that the CIA's policy is controlled by anyone other than the CIA's Deputy Director who commands internal operations, and its Director, who reports to the director of National Intelligence as well as having to answer to Congress and the White House?
For the most part, theories of secret groups that control things are false, not counting well-known groups like the Masons, etc. that make secrecy part of their identity. There is plenty of evidence to support that Congress and the White House are lobbied heavily by outside interest, and that's no secret. Combine that with the varied interests and agendas in the involved organizations, human error, incorrect or misinterpreted information, etc. and you have plenty enough reason for things like this to go wrong.
If you are an American citizen, and you believe the U.S. government is so wrong and misguided, nothing is typically stopping you from leaving the country or attempting to vote for others that might be able to make some changes, but the fact is that there is an extreme momentum of the country that is simultaneous chaotic and well-intentioned, so no matter who you vote for, things will typically continue on. Well- maybe not if Trump is elected, because the entire country could turn into a sideshow ;) , but this is true for the most part.
If you live in another democratic country, vote for leaders that you believe will positively influence the U.S. in one way or another, or you can speak up about it.
Belief in some shadowy group is just not helpful, and is a result of the imprint on the psyche from movies, television, and other media sources. There are real groups out there with influence, and real single players with influence, but it's really not that hidden; it's just complex.
"Is The Analysis Different With Source-Only Distribution?
We cannot close discussion without considering one final unique aspect to this situation. CDDLv1 does allow for free redistribution of ZFS source code. We can also therefore consider the requirements when distributing Linux and ZFS in source code form only.
Pure distribution of source with no binaries is undeniably different. When distributing source code and no binaries, requirements in those sections of GPLv2 and CDDLv1 that cover modification and/or binary (or “Executable”, as CDDLv1 calls it) distribution do not activate. Therefore, the analysis is simpler, and we find no specific clause in either license that prohibits source-only redistribution of Linux and ZFS, even on the same distribution media.
Nevertheless, there may be arguments for contributory and/or indirect copyright infringement in many jurisdictions. We present no specific analysis ourselves on the efficacy of a contributory infringement claim regarding source-only distributions of ZFS and Linux. However, in our GPL litigation experience, we have noticed that judges are savvy at sniffing out attempts to circumvent legal requirements, and they are skeptical about attempts to exploit loopholes. Furthermore, we cannot predict Oracle's view — given its past willingness to enforce copyleft licenses, and Oracle's recent attempts to adjudicate the limits of copyright in Court. Downstream users should consider carefully before engaging in even source-only distribution.
We note that Debian's decision to place source-only ZFS in a relegated area of their archive called contrib, is an innovative solution. Debian fortunately had a long-standing policy that contrib was specifically designed for source code that, while licensed under an acceptable license for Debian's Free Software Guidelines, also has a default use that can cause licensing problems for downstream Debian users. Therefore, Debian communicates clearly to their users that this code is problematic by keeping it out of their main archive. Furthermore, Debian does not distribute any binary form of zfs.ko.
(Full disclosure: Conservancy has a services agreement with Debian in which Conservancy occasionally gives its opinions, in a non-legal capacity, to Debian on topics of Free Software licensing, and gave Debian advice on this matter under that agreement. Conservancy is not Debian's legal counsel.)"
It seems like this could have worked if the parent bought points and the kid could redeem earned points for gifts like Amazon gift cards, etc. This model is used by a lot of corporate reward programs.
I didn't know about the relic milpa idea. I guess if there were a lot of thick solid fertilizer just in that rectangular area that wouldn't run off easily, it could possibly do that.
It may be anything, but I think it's a little strange how they shot this down so fast without any evidence. Makes me wonder if this is a desperate attempt to deter looters.
I understand your concern, but, as I said, a number of authors have not have financing, plans for new contributors, etc. in the beginning and have been successful; these are not requirement for success in the beginning.
For example, here is the story of how Python got its start from Guido van Rossum (quote from 1996):
"Over six years ago, in December 1989, I was looking for a "hobby" programming project that would keep me occupied during the week around Christmas. My office ... would be closed, but I had a home computer, and not much else on my hands. I decided to write an interpreter for the new scripting language I had been thinking about lately: a descendant of ABC that would appeal to Unix/C hackers. I chose Python as a working title for the project, being in a slightly irreverent mood (and a big fan of Monty Python's Flying Circus)."
And the history of how Ruby got its start by Yukihiro Matsumoto (quote from 1999) is similar:
"I was talking with my colleague about the possibility of an object-oriented scripting language. I knew Perl (Perl4, not Perl5), but I didn't like it really, because it had the smell of a toy language (it still has). The object-oriented language seemed very promising. I knew Python then. But I didn't like it, because I didn't think it was a true object-oriented language — OO features appeared to be add-on to the language. As a language maniac and OO fan for 15 years, I really wanted a genuine object-oriented, easy-to-use scripting language. I looked for but couldn't find one. So I decided to make it."
Denys Shabalin is working under the author of Scala and corresponding regularly with the author of Scala.js, so he has more support than either van Rossum or Matsumoto did, and neither of them had the plans you spoke of- they just wrote the language because it is what they wanted to do.
There have been so many successful projects started by one person. Shooting it down before seeing what will be done is a bad idea.
I'm interested in it breaking away from the JVM to become more performant, since that has been one of my concerns about Scala; there is a lot of good about JVM-based languages, but when in the ring with other languages like Go, you need to be quick to win.
I hope that others join him, but there's no reason to believe he can't do it if he sets his mind to it.
Agreed. Every implementation of DRM has been or will be broken eventually, and can keep people out of something that wasn't intended to be always locked.
Putting DRM on software and music is like building shitty locks into every book in the library or single in the record store. It doesn't make sense.
Post anyone could write: "That's so unfair, because Google owns more than half of all searches. They get to decide what you find on the web!"
In fact, the argument of the bias bubble is the one that Duck Duck Go uses, and I don't disagree with it. Google's results are biased.
However, does the fact that Google can and does hide some (or even many) relevant pages on the web from you make them responsible for "closing the web"?
Of course not! Without Google, instead of random but relevant websites and blogs providing answers when you search, you'd probably go to a centralized sites for information or data, which could be biased and ignorant.
Without Google, think of all of the internet companies that never would have grown because they would never have been found.
Back to Facebook. Sure, many on Facebook just share photos, comments, have discussions, etc. But, there are a lot of links shared and pages you can like to get more links in your feed. As a Facebook user, I see much more new content and read information I would have been unaware of if I'd only been reading HN or a news website. I also share the best stories from HN, exposing a number of my friends to articles they would not have otherwise read.
In my opinion, Facebook hasn't closed the web. In fact, it seems that the web would have been more closed if Facebook and Google had never existed.
It can be solved by extending patents in return for lower prices. Then the government must enforce patents internationally by putting pressure on countries that ignore patents.
Another concern is poor quality from knockoff manufacturers. You can partially solve that by lowering costs because the original product becomes more competitive. You can also try to apply pressure on countries that don't honor patents.
You can complain about the cost, but you can't just make pharma companies sell their products for less because you believe they are too expensive. You need to give them a reason to believe that they can continue to sell a good product and make money off of the research investment they put in. You also need to give them incentive not to make small changes to drugs to renew patents when the original version of the drug might be a better version.
Granted, it is sick when people make an excessive amount of money at the expense of those most in need. But, most of the bad that happens in pharma is due to suboptimal patents and suboptimal patent enforcement.
Of the homeless I've gotten to know, some shared with me that they were schizophrenic and the other had family but was estranged from them. Others were just down on their luck.
If they have kids and are a single parent, it makes it much tougher to just get a job.
Others have access to the resources, but they don't feel they could do the jobs they know about.
I think the majority of truly homeless need someone to really talk with about things, and many will never on their own be able to overcome their homelessness. If those with billions wanted to help, they would provide these people with analysts, medical attention, and perhaps nursing. I doubt they would want to live in a mental institution, but some really should have that level of attention to help avoid problems with alcoholism, drugs, etc. that are a way of escaping.
Still others are privileged. They could easily go back to their family or friends to get help, but they don't. I have very little sympathy for these people when they suck resources away from the homeless that really need it and make it seem like others that really are in need are there by choice. I wish these people would go live in their parents' basements where they belong.
Others aren't really homeless. Some that hold the cardboard signs may have apartments, homes, etc. I know one person where I used to work that I was told would leave her job, go to the corner and beg, then go home. It was an extra source of income.
Even with all of the people that aren't truly homeless or may not even be poor begging, it is still the right thing to help them if you can. You can put together a care bag with snacks, bathing supplies, etc. and give it to them instead of money. You can buy them food. You might not be able to afford to help them all, but even if you just help one every once in a while, if enough people do that, things would be much better. You can't stop homelessness by ignoring it, and there is such a disparity between most of us on HN and those living on the street, that as long as you know you're not funding a drug or alcohol habit, you're helping.
I agree that it could use adjustments.
Real-life karma is a good thing, but karma points are mostly a bandaid for "no other way of trying to keep trolling and other poor quality communication down".
The serious downside of having karma is providing undeserved power and prestige via a high status and ability to have certain actions to those that don't necessarily deserve it.
But the only way to get rid of it and get similar benefit is to have a community that can elect users into power that deserve it, like StackOverflow's elections. It would be even better if you gave the power to everyone and they were all wise enough and dependable enough to wield that power as needed, but that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.