This is interesting. I've recently been doing quite a bit of research into what my "future stack" is going to be for backend. MinIO regularly came onto my radar but one heuristic (among many) I use to determine which software is TRULY open source and which is far less likely to remain open source is whether they even provide a link to their Github page and prominently display it on their website. MinIO was triggering my "not really open source" radar for this reason.
I'm still dabbling but have kind of latched onto the idea of using Ceph. To my understanding they were acquired by RedHat, and the project has all the signs of real open source, including the fact that it originated as a doctoral research project at the University of California, Santa Cruz, with initial funding from the U.S. Department of Energy.
Henry Ford's philosophy was that if he paid his workers a higher wage, they would be able to afford the products they were producing, namely his Model T automobiles. This would, in turn, create a larger customer base for his company and help stimulate the economy by increasing consumer spending.
The fact that there is proprietary software running in "open source" mobile phone OSes may not be addressing the source of the problem. Because it seems that by funding a project like this it almost implies that the parties funding it don't necessarily trust the people who own and thus could open source the proprietary blobs tomorrow.
The leap I seem to have trouble getting to is this. If you can't trust the people responsible for the proprietary software, how can you be sure that they won't turn around and start using new chips or software once the existing ones are reverse engineered? Perhaps it's about patents and the patent holders could be using this IP as a cash cow?
The one that I had in mind while writing this was a "variation on this theme". Altered Carbon (Netflix, 2018–2020), based on the 2002 novel by Richard K. Morgan.
There are a number of others, though as well where the recurring theme seems to be the "evil elites" leaving the poor to fend for themselves.
Definitely agree, no one "knows" how the world works. I don't think the OP presumes anyone does. The intention in saying this was to point out that there are some (these days it seems many) who are off the mark in an almost tragic way, and have no desire to reflect / improve on this.
Not sure if the 'No' was to say you disagree. I'm not sure, from reading the rest of your comment, that it is a disagreement. If you care to clarify I'll try to come back to respond at some point.
I think the "elites" you're talking about won't want to leave. They'll want to stick around so they can "have power" and fleece the people that will continue to let them do it. They won't feel at home unless they have people they can take advantage of.
I think "elite" is the wrong term maybe. I think the use of that term is pulling more from how these stories tend to paint the two groups. One being the "haves" the other the "have nots". It's true "socioeconomic status" in some way can be considered in this category I'm thinking of, but I'm thinking more from an academic perspective. People who show a true curiosity about the world around them. People who will survive in pretty much any situation because they're the ones who have the most to contribute to a society.
This could have some merit. I do question, though, why someone would spend time gaming a system when they could be living their lives and enjoying their families and friends and other things that life has to offer? Could you see yourself doing that? Or perhaps your life is already rich enough that you couldn't imagine wasting your time on something like that? The point is it seems there is a threshold, below which extremism seems to thrive.
I do agree that people with real mental health issues, who only want to see death and destruction of the people and world around them might think it would be fun, but I'd argue that those people wouldn't be very effective at achieving that goal.
> What has become known since as the "Coasean World,"--where rational actors transact freely without need for institutions, firms, or even law—"is really the world of modern economic theory, one which I was hoping to persuade economists to leave."
Not sure if this was your point, but I didn't post this thinking people on this forum didn't already know most if not all of this. I think the interesting point is that it seems nearly 1/2 of the US population are weaponizing this misunderstanding by allowing these things to inform their political views.
3. Misinterpreting Natural Selection as a Moral Imperative:
Misunderstanding: Darwin's theory of natural selection describes a biological process where organisms with traits better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. It is a descriptive scientific theory, not a prescriptive moral or ethical framework. Misinterpretations often turn this into an "ought" – that society should operate like natural selection, with the "strong" prevailing and the "weak" perishing.
Far-Right Connection: This can manifest in arguments against social safety nets, or in justifications for aggressive competition, or even in the dehumanization of certain groups deemed "unfit."
Clues Online: Discussions that frame societal problems solely in terms of individual "fitness" or that advocate for policies that intentionally disadvantage certain groups under the guise of "natural order" might be drawing on this misinterpretation.
4. Racial Interpretations of Evolution:
Misunderstanding: While Darwin's work predates modern genetics and was influenced by the prevailing racial views of his time (and some of his own writings unfortunately reflect this), the scientific understanding of human evolution today emphasizes common ancestry and genetic diversity within a single human species. It refutes the idea of distinct "races" as biologically separate categories or that some "races" are inherently superior or inferior.
Far-Right Connection: Historically, and in some contemporary far-right circles, evolutionary concepts have been twisted to support racist ideologies, claiming a hierarchy of human "races" and justifying discrimination or even violence.
Clues Online: Any rhetoric that uses "evolution" to argue for racial purity, racial hierarchies, or a "struggle" between different human racial groups is a clear sign of misunderstanding and misapplication of scientific evolutionary theory. This often appears in white supremacist or ethno-nationalist online spaces.
In summary, the online landscape provides ample evidence that some within MAGA and other far-right ideologies misunderstand Darwin's research by:
Conflating biological evolution with "Social Darwinism."
Rejecting evolution in favor of creationism or Intelligent Design due to religious or ideological beliefs.
Misinterpreting natural selection as a moral blueprint for society.
Using distorted evolutionary concepts to justify racist or discriminatory views.
It's crucial to remember that these are misinterpretations and misapplications, not accurate reflections of modern evolutionary biology.
Agree with the sentiment that we need to have compassion and be willing to compromise, but I also think that given this President's track record he needs to be on a short leash. I personally found it stunning that people at high levels in government positions are worried about this. They are obviously seeing things we're not seeing that give them the indication that Trump is obviously not making decisions based on whether he thinks what he's doing will incite riots or not.
The part about "caring" that I think requires nuance to get to the heart of the issue:
I used to seek out tough challenges that had tight deadlines. Early in my career. This helped me gain a lot of knowledge about my craft. However, now that I've acquired a lot of knowledge I don't go actively seeking work I'm not being asked to do. It's not because I don't care, but it's because I value my life outside of work.
The other part of this is that there were never tangible rewards, such as a raise or promotion (besides the experience I acquired) so at this stage in my career by asking to do extra work and spend more stressful hours in a salaried job environment for nothing in return would ultimately be a bad decision on my part.
One thing I learned about my career in tech. Small companies tend to operate a little more so as meritocracies than large corporations.
The real incentive in large corporations / organizations seems to be about "building strong relationships / trust with people in power". Not about "becoming good at what you do".
This incentive structure was probably fine in a "post-industrial age", but is very wrong for the "information age". Eventually I think this way of thinking / organizing will go away via natural selection , but probably (sadly) not until most of us are dead. Because there are so many entrenched interests who espouse this kind of hierarchy.
I'm simply pulling from my personal experience / interactions I've had with AI chatbots when I say this, but from my perspective anyone who considers AI a "mediocrity machine" is doing it wrong.
I'm not familiar with how most of the main chatbots do this, but the one I'm most familiar with is Gemini and I don't believe it has that.
My original message probably didn't do justice to the bigger aspect to this "integration". For example, I envision giving these chatbot services a common API (implemented by the different chatbot companies).
Within this API, for example, it would be possible for me to post the conversation, then someone else could just pickup with that conversation and start asking additional questions about the same topics of that conversation. It would essentially turn these conversations into more of a "graph" representation than a more linear data structure like a list. Also it would be possible to "pickup" a conversation from one chatbot and continue it (by someone else maybe) on a different chatbot.
Also I think there's room for a "collaborative" aspect to something like that.
For example maybe I don't think of asking the questions that others might think to ask. I'd like to see their variations to how they might attack the same problems.
I fully respect your preference. But I think that's an area where a lot of people might have different opinions. I know for sure I'd be very interested in subscribing to feeds like that.
I'm still dabbling but have kind of latched onto the idea of using Ceph. To my understanding they were acquired by RedHat, and the project has all the signs of real open source, including the fact that it originated as a doctoral research project at the University of California, Santa Cruz, with initial funding from the U.S. Department of Energy.