Oh I did. I got rid of it. Inspiring both constant censure and the kind of response you're giving drove me to despair.
I don't write things for public consumption now.
But we're not talking about me or the post. We're talking about your refusal to engage with the implications of what the project did.
I don't care what Datastar does. I'd never use Datastar. Looks like exactly what I don't need. They can certainly govern their product as they see fit.
But I've disassociated from projects for less egregious unannounced terms changes. And I've never had that decision come out for the worst, only neutral or better.
As I read it the op said, "I don't like how they changed this license, this is a bad direction and I didn't think there was adequate transparency."
And your rebuttal is, "Well you can always recover the code from the git history?"
I mean, this is true, but do you think this really addresses the spirit of the post's complaint? Does mentioning they're a non-profit change anything about the complaint?
The leadership and future of a software project is an important component in its use professionally. If someone believes that the project's leadership is acting in an unfair or unpredictable way then it's rational and prudent for them to first express displeasure, then disassociate with the project if they continue this course. But you've decided to write a post that suggests the poster is being irrational, unfair, and that they want the project to fail when clearly they don't.
If you'd like to critique the post's points, I suggest you do so rather than straw manning and well-poisoning. This post may look good to friends of the project, but to me as someone with only a passing familiarity with what's going on? It looks awful.
You're either wrong or lying about the idea that famous mathematical discoveries have not been financed by governments historically.
You're either wrong or lying about the idea that this is, at scale, lottery ticket mentality. The modern scientific apparatus has flaws, but despite those it's a marvel of modern distributed resource allocation and cooperation rarely rivaled in human culture.
> Have you considered taxing less in the first place? So that there's more money for eg private research?
Sure, but this wouldn't obviously lead to outcomes for the public good. Even if we handwaved away IP and secrecy expectations in your scenario (is the abolishment of IP in your calculus? If not your task is even harder), there are obvious challenges you'd need to overcome:
1. How will non-experts vet the meaning or potential of research to select allocation? How will they even learn the option space to choose from? This is an incredible knowledge burden on the market that has profound implications on what can be researched. I see very little evidence that the public at large can do this, and I ask for an existence proof.
2. Even if you can get past #1, what then keeps outcomes aligned with the public interest? This is the same general objection most people have to Hayek's "the noble purpose of the rich is to have their tastes direct society" idea: the outcomes are mostly around consolidating power.
More broadly, everyone accepts this pooled resource methodology is superior. Even many anarchists[1] don't oppose collectivist resource pooling and management so long as it's voluntary and done in ways tha minimizes hierarchical extent and implications
What you're suggesting is that wealth redistribution is somehow morally wrong for the wealthy, but many of the wealthiest people are wealthy in appreciable part because of the way their endeavors have interacted with redistributive endeavors. Musk and Thiel, as living examples, both have benefitted enormously from redistribution. So why was it good for them, but now it's bad? Why isn't having an explicit force to counter economic attraction bad, given that we can provide and measure its existence?
American science supremacy is not a thing I'm interested in defending. However, it's undeniable that America's redistributive methodology has lead it to be the science capital of the world for generations, and Americans have definitely benefitted from this status more than the infinitesimal sum of money committed relative to their budget. What value are you offering in return? It seems like a "trust me" story at a time when we see not just an attack on science funding but an attack on the idea of a consensus reality contradicting corporate profit motives (e.g., Climate change, RFKs attack on medicine).
I don't know how you get around these objections. I don't even know where you go to find an example of all this working in a purely private methodology that's not counterfactual. It seems like a lot of moral grandstanding and "trust me bro" from out here. You should make these arguments somewhere we can find them if you want us to believe the conclusions.
> Company in sector X calling for more government spending on sector X seems hardly like news?
Indeed! You're the one trying to paint it as bad, misguided, incorrect, or immoral? Even private companies benefit from public research grants. Whatever the pejorative you want to attach, the burden is on you to suggest something better.
[1] Please note we're using the historical definition here in the tradition of Goldman, Bakunin, Malatesta, Chomsky and Carson, etc.
I wish that more people understood that if they're very wrong/openly lying about the history of scientific achievement, they're probably in the wrong about their conclusions regarding the future of science as well.
And that's Eru (and perhaps you) here. Pubic science continues to make fantastic moves forward, with one notable example being nearly ALL the meaningful research and engineering moving us towards nuclear fusion being based on public research. Historically, major contributors to research almost universally had significant government funding.
It's true that we can gesture to AI research recently as a fruitful place for private research, but even orgs like Deepmind took government grants. Deepmind's publicly called for governments to fund AI research, as have many other (private) researchers.
In any event, taking tax money and giving it back to the betterment of society as a whole is one of the most uniformly good things that could be done with tax dollars. Science consistently betters society as a whole, and it's almost impossible to identify in advance what theoretical or practical breakthroughs in any given field are about to become significant.
In the interest of historical accuracy, Newton's work was directly and indirectly subsidized by his government as was the university he attended (that later gave him partial scholarship). He invented Calculus while isolated due to the plague, but had already graduated by then with those scholarship bucks from a university chartered by the British government.
A lot of his work occurred while he was what we'd now call a tenured professor of mathematics, again at a universe with an impressive amount of money being donated directly by the British government.
In general, the history of higher learning is the history of governments (or the wealthy people who constitute them) funding research and facilities. You may not like it, but you shouldn't misrepresent history just to make your preferences sound more normal.
If you like these kinds of games but find SPD to be a little too mechanically simple and lacking in build diversity, you may also enjoy DCSS (dungeon crawl stone soup) and my personal favorite: Frogcomposband.
You can play the later at angband.live, and it's an exceptional game with incredible depth and variety.
And look at how well it's going for Claude. Their primary claim to fame is being called "an annoying coworker" and that's it.
Why would anyone look to form a contract with Anthropic right now? I'd say they're in danger here, because their models and offerings don't have clear value propositions to customers.
Google's strategy for search ux is decidedly not "nimble and rapid" and I don't understand why anyone with first hand knowledge would ever suggest that.
For one, that "deprioritize a competitor" is not clear at all. Why would that be so? Isn't it far more likely, given the rarity of these events, that a test regression occurred or some other subtle issue rather than assumed malfeasance?
For two, that "next update in 12 hours" is user comms. For me, at least, google.com works fine both on curl and my browser. That's a fairly normal cadence for big companies.
On the larger point about "nimble and deploying rapidly", the people who generally brag about "being nimble and deploying rapidly" almost never serve an even 1/100th the audience the size of Google.com does, and it's really questionable if, at that scale, you actually want to risk global regressions even on trivial bugs.
So I don't know what that user is talking about, and I agree with you that they are obviously not that.
That approach may be antithetical to the modern startup engineer frantic to prove their stock's hypothetical worth to their investors, unconcerned about trivial revenue loss from frontpage issues because of whatever latest node.js drama nuked their continuously deployed website. But the fact that "the landing search page is broken for 1% of users in a rare but public use case" is news at all is because Google's approach for search sets our expectations that this won't happen.
Sure but... Let's not kid ourselves. The FIs are actively killing these products because we all realize how much we can damage the PBR stickiness of American banks.
The "KLO-ification" of Mint, the C1Acquisition of Level, Visa tactically grabbing Plaid: they're all to consolidate the industry and allow existing players to stifle the American banking landscape.
> As a final anecdote, I did know women who dated executives and VCs in the Bay. Some of these guys had mammoth egos. Curiously, that didn't prevent them from having far better dating lives than any engineer I knew.
Considering how many executives and SVPs in tech have been caught in sexual harassment (if not outright sexual assault), you might want to think quietly for awhile about what your definitions and standards are.
I can cite statistics to create absurd conclusions and minimize points I don't like to. It's called, "being disingenuous." It is not a laudable thing simply to cite them. Statistics do not lend truth, they illustrate relationships and convey points.
> My point was that there tends to be outrage about this kind of victim blaming when it comes to rape, but not when it comes to other crimes. SJWs (for lack of a better term) don't feel the need to gang up on people who give advice to tourists to avoid getting mugged; they don't feel the need to call the conference organizers from my example "mugging apologists". Why is that?
Because rape is a heinous crime violating fundamental human rights, and yet here you are suggesting it's no more consequential than being pickpocketed.
> I don't know what kind of conferences you attend, but I've never attended one where people got black-out drunk, nor have I attended any with my partner.
I've certainly seen numerous examples of this behavior around technical conferences. There are often runs to local bars or other establishments where its socially normal to drink. In fact, that's a common complaint about tech!
> On the other hand, I have attended conferences where we were specifically warned by the organizers about pick-pockets and not to go into certain parts of the (rather large, South American) city.
And did anyone write a long, statistics-citing rant about how unnecessary it is to warn people about this? I suspect the answer is no, and in fact no one did.
> I also think it's good to remember that people are perfectly fine with victim blaming when it comes to wallet theft. There should be a possibility for nuance here.
... What? Did you genuinely just suggest there should be nuance for rape victim blaming by proxy?
> After all, both the whole setting and the relationships between participants are totally different. And it should be possible to question the connection without being made a target for the kind of accusation you're making.)
Except that many people travel to conferences with their colleagues, and that's precisely the kind of crime of opportunity the statistics (when you exclude statutory crimes) warn about...
Can I be brutally honest for a moment? If by the time you're an adult you don't know that women have body autonomy, your degree of ignorance borders on willful and your opinion of women includes a lesser definition of freedom and autonomy.
The best way to get the word out, as it were, is to remind folks that this is not true via example cases. Expecting the same rhetorical strategy that has enabled men for so long to suddenly start working is absurd.
An we're seeing the "punish the worst offenders publicly" strategy making a huge impact. This is in fact in line with the (often lauded) work of First Wave Feminism, in that creating such a fuss that it cannot be ignored and becomes a focal point of social consideration is essentially what got women the vote. In this effort, I think western third-wave feminism has found a clear path forward. It's also a path we can apply to all people equally, to demonstrate that feminism is (despite its name) not a movement that puts women first, but rather on equal footing. Women can be rapists, and the current #metoo movement has shown it's willing to expose and punish its own. A movement a lot of MRA-leaning folks have been demanding for some time.
> I've read it numerous times, thank you very much, paying close attention to the rhetorical structure and trying to understand the overall point he was trying to communicate.
What do you think it is? Because I felt like his very clear definition of what he was challenging and why made his intent pretty clear. Your argument seems to be, "He doesn't want to redefine rape in all cases, just in THIS case which was pertinent to him at the time."
Unless you think there is a broader conclusion that somehow doesn't invalidate his (admittedly confused) post, please lay it out more clearly.
> I agree that communities should be able to set standards for themselves. However, are you willing to accept that not everyone agrees with your personal standards? Many people would not agree with the way you have characterized Ts'o above -- should such people get a say in setting the community standards also?
It's certainly obvious that many people here have personal standard which include "selectively defining rape with many qualifiers to discourage people from citing aggregate statistics in social or organizational policy decisions."
> In fairness, the context of the Ts'o email seems to be conference organization, and it points out that large fractions of the rape statistics are made out of domestic abuse and drunk undergrads.
Which seems fairly relevant to a technical conference's audience, don't you...
> Neither of those seem particularly relevant for conference organization, so it should be possible to point out those simple facts without being immediately tarred as a rape apologist.
Oh. So you think pointing out that many rapes are crimes of opportunity isn't relevant to tech conferences because... why exactly? It seems like exactly the sort of environment where such opportunities arise.
> but the first paragraph of your comment basically reads like an unsubstantiated attempt at character assassination
Ts'o said these things. He stands by them. He wants to try an draw a line between one type of rape and another to change the way people discuss statistics, specifically to affect how scaled social events are organized. It's amazing to me that folks are passionately defending such a textbook example of at-scale apologism. We would not even imagine suffering this argument if we substituted "rape" for "wallet theft." But Ts'o does level it for rape precisely because he believes it's appropriate to tactically blame victims and subdivide statistics.
> Fascinating, a polite citation of statistics and analyses by Mr. Ts'o, one from a government organization and another from a university, is somehow characterized a defense of one of the most heinous acts imaginable?
Could you point to the specific document Ts'o was citing that suggests statutory rape not be bundled with other rape statistics? His very literal conclusion is that bundling these should be considered misleading.
> Is permitting people with biases so extreme to write CoCs what we really want?
Quite remarkable how you take me to task for hyperbole and then try to raft my personal opinion to the Linux CoC, of which I have absolutely 0 connection. One need not be a particularly astute reader to note what a dishonest tactic this is.
> OK, so it seems that his own words contradict your assertion. Care to explain?
To quote the conclusion:
>> Please note, I am not diminishing what rape is, and or any particular person's experience. However, I am challenging the use of statistics that may be hyperbolic and misleading, and ultimately may be very counterproductive if it causes people to become afraid when the reality might not be as horrible as the "1 in 4" numbers might at first sound.
"Please note, I am not diminishing what rape is but I'd like to diminish the statistics around rape because when I think of rape I think of 80's movies where a brute forces a woman's legs open and not, you know, casual nonviolent stuff."
Ts'o tells us his aim with this, to try and cast doubt on the the way statistics are reported or used by attempting to draw a line between what he nonsensically separates as "violent" and "non-violent" rape. The idea that Rape is not Harm is a bit like suggesting that it's not really Home Robbery if you're not home while the burglar is there. It's like suggesting that if I take your wallet while you're drunk and passed out, I didn't steal from you because you were asking for it. And that you'd be in the wrong if you tried to call it theft, because there were no knives brandished and basically it wasn't stealing.
Did you read the citation carefully? It seems very obvious to me. Your pullquote doesn't even really invalidate my point. Forgive me, but it looks to me like you'd never actually read this article but you went looking through it for the very first quote that met your exoneration criterion, without regard to how it fit into the whole rhetorical structure.
I don't write things for public consumption now.
But we're not talking about me or the post. We're talking about your refusal to engage with the implications of what the project did.
I don't care what Datastar does. I'd never use Datastar. Looks like exactly what I don't need. They can certainly govern their product as they see fit.
But I've disassociated from projects for less egregious unannounced terms changes. And I've never had that decision come out for the worst, only neutral or better.
Good luck with your future endeavors, I guess.