It's not the same, but I still remember the first time I was served genmai cha (roasted rice tea) at a sushi restaurant. I loved it and inquired, the server was kind enough to show me the actual tea bag — it was Yamamotoyama. Available lots of places in the US, but I used to buy it at a Japanese grocery store.
While it will take a while to review the subtleties of this license, I appreciate that out of the gate they are marketing it as "Source Available" rather than picking a stupid fight by calling it "Open Source".
Voter suppression strategy depends on statistical degradation of enfranchisement.
There is a small group for whom it is literally impossible to obtain supporting documentation — this is the group that you're focusing on, but to my mind it's not that important.
There is a much larger group for whom the difficulty of obtain supporting documentation makes them statistically less likely to obtain it — and this larger group is the one targeted by voter ID laws to suppress their votes.
Because voter suppression strategies will absolutely not be abandoned, we're on an inevitable path towards national IDs.
Should voter ID requirements (a la "SAVE America" act or similar) become law, constitutional prohibitions on poll taxes will lead towards every citizen getting an ID at no charge.
The goal should be to run up the score of the popular vote as much as possible even in the face of anti-democratic shenanigans like gerrymandering or statistical voter suppression, e.g. how the SAVE act would make it harder for women (who lean Democratic) to exercise their right to vote (because it will require more documents for people who have changed their last name to prove their identities).
Manipulating the election and perpetuating minority rule rather than responding to popular will has its limitations. We need to be prepared for a second civil rights movement.
> We realize that it is often seen as an economic advantage for one company to "own" a market - in the software industry, that means to control tightly a particular conduit such that all others must pay for its use. This is typically done by "owning" the protocols through which companies conduct business, at the expense of all those other companies. To the extent that the protocols of the World Wide Web remain "unowned" by a single company, the Web will remain a level playing field for companies large and small. Thus, "ownership" of the protocols must be prevented.
Output is a separate issue from training. Courts will never decide that a identical copy spit out by an LLM is non-infringing simply because it went through an LLM stage. Copyright laundering is wishful thinking by tech folks.
> AI is finding vulnerabilities in all kinds of software written by humans.
I'm aware — I've used LLMs to find vulnerabilities, myself. But it doesn't follow that because AI can find them that AI can find the optimal fix, because fixing vulnerabilities often involves tradeoffs.
As much as I like the Apple Passwords app, one of its downsides is that if I have my TOTP app on my iPhone, both passwords and TOTP live on the same device. So for many services I use Bitwarden for passwords.
FIFA is a legendarily awful organization. In my weaker moments reading your piece I thought to myself how nice it would have been if someone more ruthless than you had been made an example of them.
RCV completely solves the “spoiler candidate” problem, which is a huge issue limiting choice and innovation in the two-party-dominated US. Approval Voting remains susceptible to spoilers.
In the US there are already people who complain that any election they lose must been “rigged”, including the current occupant of the White House. Choosing Approval Voting over RCV is not going to bring such people around; it’s rhetorical advantages are inconsequential.
Ranked Choice Voting makes it easier to vote for “less bad” candidates.
RCV also tends to work against polarization, since it rewards candidates who are at least acceptable to a broad swath of the electorate.
It may not be the “answer” for all that ails the American political system, but it would help.
ETA: Unlike many other reforms it's also doable within the constraints of the current constitutional order and is hard for SCOTUS to torpedo (though I suppose I shouldn't underestimate SCOTUS).