1. When you have a viable (politically and otherwise) solution to long term waste storage.
2. Proper funding of costs for decommissioning of private reactors as they reach the end of their useful life.
3. A rational emergency fund pool.should, dear god, catastrophic failure occur to a private facility.
With all that being foisted on "private" reactors one could think that you're pushing an agenda that has less to do with saving the world and more to do with other things. The reality is quite simple. If you want to reduce world wide carbon foot prints, we can either do the rational thing and embrace something that can do the job today or we can just condemn most of the planet to poverty and worse.
Personally, if my choices are live within 10 miles of a coal fired power plant or 10 miles of a reactor, I'll take that reactor immediately. Of course, if you'd rather live with higher levels of radioactive release and all that lovely carbon...
there have been several rules that uphold Arbitration agreements in EULA's recently. Congress passed a law making them binding and the SCOTUS upheld the law because Congress passed it. Employees can still sue for violations of various Labor Laws (mostly national ones) but if you're a consumer you're pretty much boned.
I know I keep harping on about this in various threads, but if we want this to stop we need to vote for candidates who refuse corporate PAC money
Yeah, it's a shame that a couple of good ideas are bundled up in a package of (in my opinion) absolute crazy.
Having a CoC is protective coloration, you do it to avoid trouble whether you believe in it or not.
That's why all of the mainstream CoCs don't allow any discrimination against anyone for any reason, including experience level. (You ageist bastards who think 1 year post college almost certainly doesn't qualify you to maintain a kernel subsystem and arbitrate patching disputes can fuck right off and die as the SJWs say)
I mean look at the Spotify CoC which openly says clearly that if you're a super-marginalized person (gay, transgendered, multi-racial, non-binary voodoo practitioner for example) you can shit all over the carpet and those evil normies can fuck right off and die:
Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:
‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you”
Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
Huh, it would strongly appear that as long as you're a SJW blessed entity you can pretty much get away with murder while if you're one of the evil non-SJW classes you will be ignored and are a fair target for any kind of harassment, abuse or anything else so long as one cloaks it in SJW non-sense.
Yeah, and people wonder why lots of other people look at CoCs as nothing but political correctness bullshit
Very much so, this could easily be read as 'anything that provides a service to a user, and accesses mongodb as a backend' ie: 'software that uses mongodb'
Which pretty much means 'run far far away unless you want your WHOLE system to be OSS'
Perhaps thats their intention, however I doubt they have thought it through much..
I think you guys are grossly misreading this. While the wording of that section may need some work, none of it is triggered unless you're offering Mongo as a direct service. None of it is triggered if Mongo is used as a backend. None of it is triggered if you're just using Mongo to provide some other service, but not Mongo itself. Even if it is triggered, it's pretty clear their intention is to by pass someone saying "Well, I'm selling MongoDB as "SuperMega Cloud WebScale Service. But, this pesky license requires me to give back.. hmm... Okay, I just have to provide some token thing but definitely not the bits required to actually replicate the service and certainly not my improvements to Mongo."
Whether that is a good idea or not is a separate question, however their intent is pretty clear. In short, they're tired of the AWSes of the world snatching some open source thing, slapping a fancy label on it and selling the service for gobs of money while giving nothing at all back to those who created the software that allows them to exist.
That too could be debated as a good idea or not. I'm sure the MIT/BSD folks would say that's perfectly fine. Not everyone likes to get used like that and may see it as being screwed over.
it's a particularly sad state of affairs - a reaction to unethical corporate spongeing - that a major prominent software team has to consider changing the license to a non-free one just to be able to pay their developers to keep working, whilst corporations all around them make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, using their work??
The AGPLv3 lets you use software for any purpose. Are you saying everyone should pay for Apache or Linux?
The new license forces IaaS providers to open source everything--Amazon would have to make AWS open source.
Basically, it's a matter of wanting to release it as free software but also have it be proprietary software and so not really free. This is like when Oracle released Java under GPL and then sued Google for not paying for Java.
Er, this is nothing like what Oracle has/is done. This is purely a strike against AWS and others who snatch open source systems, apply a veneer of closed source stuff and try and sell it as a service, usually while attempting to dissuade anyone from running it themselves and just "move to the cloud".
If one is an AWS, then one would be prohibited from snatching Mongo (or other covered things), renaming it and selling it as a service. If one is just using Mongo for whatever and not selling it as a direct service, nothing changes. Their FAQ is pretty clear about all this and makes their intent crystal clear.
> This left-wing screen (which is not news, let alone news for nerds) ignores that companies don't "extract" value from a market.
Except that's exactly what they do: It's called "Profit." Profit is the extracted value in excess of the materials and labor the thing they sold cost. The fact that you are willing to pay in excess of what something is materially worth because its convenient doesn't mean it's not extracting value from you. Just the opposite, in fact.
Note this is not necessarily a bad thing; That profit can be applied to other things, and so the extracted value ultimately recycled back into the economy. It's when people take that extracted value and remove it from the economy that we have a problem... =Smidge=
I'd wager the objection stems from "extract" almost always being used in a negative way. While you correct in your analysis, some people tend to use "extract" in much the same way that others would say that "profit is theft"
Imagine if you could create an environment where more women want to choose be engineers.
Could it be possible that the existing pool of talented engineers could modify their behaviours a little and nearly double the overall talent pool?
No, it wouldn't be possible. Is it possible that some environments are not overly welcoming? Sure, but that's life. The reality is that out of *all* the women I've known in my entire life probably no more than 15% (That's being wildly generous) are even remotely interested in this field. If there was this vast untapped pool of women who want to be in the technical fields but are simply kept out by the evil misogyny, why is it that the idea of even finding a proverbial "geek girl" is thought super hard to the point of cliche? If this pool existed, wouldn't it be logical to think that finding such people wouldn't be such a challenge as it is, even if they weren't actively working in the field?
Are there such people? Yes, absolutely. I do know some. Yet, even in the circles I run in which tend to run heavy with tech and gaming and related people, it is already rare. How much more so in the general population then?
It'd be lovely if it wasn't this way. It'd be great. It'd be awesome. I wish it weren't this way. Yet, it is. I won't postulate on why it is this way. I just know that this is the observation I and all I've talked to directly and indirectly have had.
Apologies for the wrong-think, but it's almost as if you just pointed out why the western notion of diversity is total nonsense.
Report at once to the re-orientation camp for immediate corrective right-think. Heathen.
(For those who have had their sense of humor purged at a previous camp, this was a joke. It is not meant to be taken seriously. See Right-Think Publication 1784357 for more information.)
Frankly, I think this has very little to do with women or any other underrepresented group. It's mostly about a small group of loudmouths who believe that they know what's best for everybody. It's a power-play for no other reason than self-gratification.
I've had the privilege of working under female leadership on multiple occasions. Their immunity various complaints that men have to be wary of allows them to be blunt, direct, strict and extremely demanding. It was eye-opening and refreshing. I have a feeling female Linus would just laugh at all of this.
A female Linus would be *able* to laugh at this. A female Linus would be held up as being direct, strong, and so on for doing the exact same things.
Part of me can't help but think that all this has done is hand certain types of people a thermonuclear bomb any time they want to use it. As I said in the previous thread on this, if anyone thinks that people of *NON-PROTECTED CLASS* won't be scared of criticizing any member of *PROTECTED CLASS* they haven't been paying attention. This will be even truer if someone who is a known hard-core SJW type is involved. Criticizing them would be taking your career in your hands, something to be avoided
Torvalds's decision to step aside came after The New Yorker asked him a series of questions about his conduct for a story on complaints about his abusive behavior discouraging women from working as Linux-kernel programmers.
So is Torvalds being exceptionally abusive toward women and discouraging them from contributing, or is he equally abusive toward everyone and that is seen as more likely to discourage the women than men? Because in the latter case it makes the sexist assumption that women are fragile little things that need to be protected more so than the rest of us.
I believe it is the latter. While I fully admit to not having hard evidence either way in front of me, I am also sure that if The New Yorker had such they would have most definitely included it in an article whose stated purpose was covering exactly that. They didn't, thus it isn't overly unreasonable to logically assume such doesn't exist. Given the mailing lists are all public, this is an assumption that could be verified.
Does anyone know of any case of any time that anyone was 'beat down' on the mailing lists for being female or some other protected class? Is there any evidence of that happening for that reason in particular?
What I think would depend on standard of rigor we apply. It is not beyond reasonable doubt that CoC is genuine. On the balance of probabilities? Well, that is harder to answer, as the body of work is there to weight against it.
However, I don't think our choices are reject CoC or adopt CoC as written in stone. Rejecting it will all but ensure GG-like scorched earth war. We also don't have to adopt it as it is immutable and surrender all control of it to SJW.
I think the right approach is to adopt it and fix it in a way that makes abusing it harder. This way we can claim that we faithfully implemented CoC while frustrating ulterior motives.
That seems logical by in large. I think the difference is limited to my thought would be write a more logical and less ambiguous one from the start vice adopting one that is deeply flawed and modifying it. I can see the reasoning there, as you cay, it makes it possible to say that "We tried your way". Of course, I suspect the most ardent supporters will decry all changes. One can only go so far to appease though
I often call out SJW on their flawed thinking in this regard, so it is only fair I call you out when you make the same mistake. Just because someone is Notorious Social Justice Warrior and done many SJW things, it doesn't mean that CoC they wrote is necessary flawed. People tend to be more than one thing. If it is possible to be a raging asshole and brilliant coder, then it also follows that it is possible to be a raging SJW and write good CoC.
While I am not asserting that this CoC is good, I am asserting that we shouldn't criticize it solely based on political views of its author.
I think the best defense against SJW is to implement this CoC then work on refining it. Fix the areas where it is ambiguous or invites abuses. Like imprecise scope definition.
While I generally agree with your reasoning, I think it needs pointing out that were it just the CoC it would be one thing. It's the totality of the CoC, PMM and other things which sets a pattern that is worth examining and sheds light onto other areas. I'm not entirely sure one can be completely isolated from the other in this instance, even if the idea is sound in the general case.
I would rather write a CoC that needs less fixing in the first place than adopt one that appears deeply flawed, rife with fairly open definitions to the point of meaning anything. While it may not have been intentional, I do wonder if such ambiguity was intentional.
Do you think the CoC and PMM, both written by the same person and which appear to contain the same values, aren't linked in values and purpose? We're not really talking about a case where a person wrote some random article with questionable conclusions and then went on to write something else. We're talking about a person who has taken a particular political position and actively works to push it forward using these tools and the behaviors they tend to engender. Would you say this is mistaken?
I think you can. Nothing in CoC states that you must also adopt the manifesto. Sure, this CoC was produced by dubious people with very questionable intentions. Likewise, GPL license is based on Stallman's ideas. This doesn't mean that we have to adopt all of the Stallman's extreme views about software in their entirety. I am still hopeful that sanity will prevail and it won't go past CoC. However, I do understand and share your concerns.
You're correct, the CoC doesn't absolutely require adopting the PMM. However, it would be very hard to ignore the fact that both were written by the same person with the same overall agenda in mind and what the previous person said is 100% correct, this is a political agenda and has nothing to do with technology and only relates to being respectful to people insofar as the ways in which that advances the political agenda in question.
The previous "code" Linux had was fine. If a change was needed, an amendment of "Also, don't be a dick" would have worked. However, they have ripped out a code which specifically called for quality and good engineering above all and replaced it with one written by someone who is, by their own words a "Notorious Social Justice Warrior". I don't know the person, I could be misinterpreting their words and maybe it is tongue-in-cheek. I tend to doubt it.
This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.
Looks good. So if you are not acting on behalf of the project, use official project email for communication, or were officially appointed representative, then your conduct has no relationship with this. Extreme example - Nazi would still be able to contribute as long as Nazi-related speech is kept out of commits, discussions, mailing list, and group events.
Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Ugh, what? Why bother defining the above applicability rules and then inserting this gigantic "scope is what project maintainers decide the scope is"? This seems like a huge flaw that has to be fixed.
You've confused a feature with a bug. That isn't a flaw. That's entirely by design. It gives the impression of being defined, but ultimately allows it to be fudged however the political winds are blowing. Neat, no?
Your argument fails in the fact perhaps that guy with the man bun or a fedora and attended those code camps are actually a brilliant person who can really contribute.
Or you do want Linux coded by all guys with a short hair cut, suites, and has PHDs.
Coding is 25% intelligence and 75% effort. If someone is willing to do the effort then they should be able to contribute, if their code is crap, then don't put it in. As their current contribution didn't meet the standards needed for this deployment. They should feel free to learn and try again, perhaps the next time they may have something brilliant.
Good coding is a combination of experience and intelligence with a side of knowledge.
If you think people won't be afraid to openly criticize code if it comes from *PROTECTED CLASS* when one is a member of *NOT-PROTECTED CLASS* then you've clearly not been paying attention to this part of the world.
It'd be nice to be wrong with this. It'd be nice for the SJWs not to eat this. It'd be nice if merit and not other considerations was the only determining factor. It'd be nice. It'd also be surprising
I'm guessing chairman Pao would be much happier with the Chinese model. They do after all censor all the social media for "positive impact" and "protecting a small subset of users".
Are those really the only two possibilities, totalitarian censorship or horrifying trollscape? With all the ingenuity of Silicon Valley and the rest of mankind, and that's all we can come up with?
I think we can do better; the biggest obstacle to finding a better solution is the belief that one does not exist.
This isn't something that can or should be fixed with technology or silencing the opposition. Myself, I don't think "hate speech" should be banned. When one bans something like that one doesn't actually make it go away, all one does is drive it underground. The correct and only workable solution is to confront it and destroy it on equal footing. If the posters of such speech truly have no real value, they will be driven out. Can one change the minds of the propagators of such things? Probably not. Though, that wouldn't be the point. One doesn't argue against such to change their minds, but to hopefully change the minds of anyone listening and banning such doesn't have a chance of doing that.
If I upgrade every 4 to 6 years instead of every 2 to 3 years, then Apple is selling half as many computers. Why would they want to do that?
A lack of hardware updates and such doesn't matter.
Except that they are a hardware company.
Their sales are still strong with little to no new investment.
Wrong. Sales of Mac hardware is stagnant. The Mac Pro line is dead, with infinitesimal sales. They make almost all their money from phones... which they upgrade regularly.
Interesting. I was unaware their Mac sales were in the can. In that case... Yeah, I've got nothing here
As a society, we have become obsessed with never-ending growth and progress.
That is not the issue here. Just because hardware is updated every year doesn't mean people need, or want, to upgrade that often. But when their old hardware finally needs to be replaced, they shouldn't have to buy a "new" computer based on tech from two years ago.
I really don't understand Apple's strategy. They have a huge locked-in customer base, and high profit margins. Any other hardware manufacturer would love to be in their position. They could be making a lot of money by releasing more often. Yet they don't. It doesn't make sense.
Seems to make plenty of sense. It's contained within what you said right here: "huge locked-in customer base". What else are those people going to do? Move to Windows? Linux? They're solid Mac users. A lack of hardware updates and such doesn't matter. Their sales are still strong with little to no new investment. That base is more than happy to keep paying more and getting less.
If you claim safety is magically improved then I would like a citation. Not sure how you get 4 points for your opinion based on "a person who believes electrification..." blah blah. I was a contractor at the plant working 14 hour days for a long time and I was shocked by their standards for safety. I was also surprised at Tesla's lax protocols and their eagerness to import the cheapest workers from wherever. I also got a kick out of the profane gangster rap workers would blast from radios stationed at different pitches. Tesla badly needs a union in my opinion. There are a lot of things they are still learning about building cars and I saw things that would never fly at any other auto plant. The union would definitely improve things.
I'll provide citations since you don't. What is this crap? They don't vet the people working for a contract house so you end up with undocumented workers in the plant working obscene hours in dangerous locations. This kind of stuff doesn't happen in UAW or Japanese plants... http://www.teslarati.com/tesla...
You post as an AC and give a single cite which itself says that Tesla was not at fault, according to OSHA, for the incident. Were you trying to prove your point or just hoping no one would bother to actually read your cite.
What's more, I'd be very very surprised if every UAW and Japanese plant is a paradise of safety and wonderfulness where no one is ever hurt and no one ever feels over worked and so on. I've been to at least one such plant, small sample I know, and I can easily imagine standing at that line all day and thinking that I'm all kinds of overworked.
Your cite, such as it is, mentions that some workers claimed they were being paid as little as $5/hr which is of course under minimum wage. However, they are also contractors paid by a different company and not Tesla. Even if their claims are true, which in my opinion is doubtful, the sub-contractor is at fault not Tesla.
Your cite is ultimately not much of a cite. I'd say "try again" but since you posted AC you won't even see this response.
But there is a question of balance. $21/hour in the Bay Area isn't much, but with a little overtime it isn't terrible for a low to no skill job. It also isn't that different than $25/hour after union dues. Ergonomics and on the job injury are dealt with by workers comp, and the company eventually has an incentive to address material issues, especially in California.
While I like living in California and many of the protections it offers workers, it is already a lot like being in a union. Why add the extra layer of crooks to the mix?
Not only that, but absent a very very tight job market, if Tesla is really paying so poorly for the area and treating everyone so badly then why work from them? If they aren't having any trouble getting employees then either they have one hell of a PR department to cover these awful awful conditions or.. maybe those awful conditions don't exist and the UAW just wants another source of dues?
Exactly he's complaint is not against Unions per se but against someone who purposely got hired by Tesla for the expressed purpose of instigating Unionization.
As it stands, it still begs the question: why? If you are of the conviction that all workers should be encouraged to be in a union, is it wrong to try to convince others that they should join? IOW, does freedom of speech only hold for the right kind of opinions? Taking a job with Tesla so you can talk to your colleagues about joining a union is no different than going to any other place to argue for your particular opinions; or going to another country as a missionary. Is that morally wrong?
In very general terms and most cases, missionaries don't show up in another country telling people they're structural engineers or the like and then proselytize. Is that sometimes the case, yes I imagine it happens for reasons of safety and such. I'm sure you could try and make the comparison that what this person may have done is exactly the same thing, entering hostile territory under false pretenses. Whether that comparison is accurate or not doesn't actually change the base fact that it is dishonest and arguably immoral.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, no one is saying this person can't agitate for unions at all, but whether or not he was paid to go in as an agent of the UAW to take employment under false pretenses purely to advance the agenda of the UAW. It's one thing if the workers at Tesla hated life and figured the only way to fix things were to bring in the UAW and it's something else entirely if the UAW said to itself, "There's an untapped source of union dues!", and decided to pull some shenanigans.
That is maybe the dumbest thing I have read in a while.
That's one perspective. Another perspective is, since you clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, your opinion on the perspicacity of my argument doesn't carry a lot of weight.
"for the sake of liberty give up your rights" That's some strange doublethink.
Particularly given that that quote "for the sake of liberty give up your rights" can't be found in any of the things I said. Unless you think that the DELUSION that guns enhance your liberty is what you have a right to - that you think you have a right to be deluded and not have anybody tell you.
To be frank, I know exactly what you're talking about and the reasoning behind it and I still agree with him. He said it more directly than I did, but what you're saying makes absolutely no logical sense and the proposed solution the an agreed problem and issue does nothing at all to address the issue at hand.
I've always found it odd that the people who are most afraid of non-state actors carrying are usually the ones who also want more and more State and centralized power and authority. Thoughts?
I think you are both right and wrong.
Right in the sense that in most places around the world, people long for the rule of law (proper rule of law, not crude, mocking replicas) and the presence of armed militias, warlords and strongmen are a key factor in the prevention of this foundational democratic principle. The reality of guns replacing the rule of law is made concrete in the Congo, or the Sudan, or Syria. We can't get our way, so we'll shoot people who disagree with us, without reference the rule of law, the congress of the people, negotiation and compromise, let alone being elected based on your ideologies and theories.
Wrong in the sense that in America, regardless of what I imagine is an earnest desire for democracy, it is the american idea of the gun that has led to the present tyranny. Not the guns themselves (neither here nor there), and not really the individuals that carry them, who are often quite ordinary. But the idea that having guns will prevent the degradation of democracy, the idea of american exceptionalism, the mythology of the american revolution, these have led to blind complacency and even denial of the seriousness of these depredations, these erosions, these desecrations of the sacred principles of democracy. Why do americans meekly accept the slaver's yolk? Because of their delusional attachment to guns as a mainstay of protecting a democracy that they are simultaneously failing. Failing to protect and uphold by means which (unlike guns) are actually effective!
For the sake of freedom, for the sake of liberty, for the sake of the dignity of man, throw away your guns.
Er... What?
There are many reasons why things seem to be heading in a less Liberty oriented direction but I'm reasonably sure the ownership of guns isn't one of them. I can't say I've ever heard a single person say anything even remotely like "Well, that latest violation of the principals of Liberty is totally okay because I have my AR-15!" Even if a person said such a thing they'd be rightfully laughed at as the idea is ludicrous.
The closest anyone has come to such a statement is that the Second Amendment provides an ultimate last resort option in the event that government went too far. Each person's limit of too far is likely different, but that doesn't even remotely justify the idea that present conditions can rightfully be traced to a "delusional attachment to guns as a mainstay of protecting a democracy"
What makes you believe that to be the case? What's more, even if that were true, logically throwing away ones guns wouldn't change anything and the correct course of action would be to get more involved in elections and pay more attention to things.
Slashdot Mirror
1. When you have a viable (politically and otherwise) solution to long term waste storage.
2. Proper funding of costs for decommissioning of private reactors as they reach the end of their useful life.
3. A rational emergency fund pool.should, dear god, catastrophic failure occur to a private facility.
With all that being foisted on "private" reactors one could think that you're pushing an agenda that has less to do with saving the world and more to do with other things. The reality is quite simple. If you want to reduce world wide carbon foot prints, we can either do the rational thing and embrace something that can do the job today or we can just condemn most of the planet to poverty and worse.
Personally, if my choices are live within 10 miles of a coal fired power plant or 10 miles of a reactor, I'll take that reactor immediately. Of course, if you'd rather live with higher levels of radioactive release and all that lovely carbon...
there have been several rules that uphold Arbitration agreements in EULA's recently. Congress passed a law making them binding and the SCOTUS upheld the law because Congress passed it. Employees can still sue for violations of various Labor Laws (mostly national ones) but if you're a consumer you're pretty much boned.
I know I keep harping on about this in various threads, but if we want this to stop we need to vote for candidates who refuse corporate PAC money
Yeah, it's a shame that a couple of good ideas are bundled up in a package of (in my opinion) absolute crazy.
That's why all of the mainstream CoCs don't allow any discrimination against anyone for any reason, including experience level. (You ageist bastards who think 1 year post college almost certainly doesn't qualify you to maintain a kernel subsystem and arbitrate patching disputes can fuck right off and die as the SJWs say)
I mean look at the Spotify CoC which openly says clearly that if you're a super-marginalized person (gay, transgendered, multi-racial, non-binary voodoo practitioner for example) you can shit all over the carpet and those evil normies can fuck right off and die:
Huh, it would strongly appear that as long as you're a SJW blessed entity you can pretty much get away with murder while if you're one of the evil non-SJW classes you will be ignored and are a fair target for any kind of harassment, abuse or anything else so long as one cloaks it in SJW non-sense.
Yeah, and people wonder why lots of other people look at CoCs as nothing but political correctness bullshit
Very much so, this could easily be read as 'anything that provides a service to a user, and accesses mongodb as a backend'
ie: 'software that uses mongodb'
Which pretty much means 'run far far away unless you want your WHOLE system to be OSS'
Perhaps thats their intention, however I doubt they have thought it through much..
I think you guys are grossly misreading this. While the wording of that section may need some work, none of it is triggered unless you're offering Mongo as a direct service. None of it is triggered if Mongo is used as a backend. None of it is triggered if you're just using Mongo to provide some other service, but not Mongo itself. Even if it is triggered, it's pretty clear their intention is to by pass someone saying "Well, I'm selling MongoDB as "SuperMega Cloud WebScale Service. But, this pesky license requires me to give back.. hmm... Okay, I just have to provide some token thing but definitely not the bits required to actually replicate the service and certainly not my improvements to Mongo."
Whether that is a good idea or not is a separate question, however their intent is pretty clear. In short, they're tired of the AWSes of the world snatching some open source thing, slapping a fancy label on it and selling the service for gobs of money while giving nothing at all back to those who created the software that allows them to exist.
That too could be debated as a good idea or not. I'm sure the MIT/BSD folks would say that's perfectly fine. Not everyone likes to get used like that and may see it as being screwed over.
it's a particularly sad state of affairs - a reaction to unethical corporate spongeing - that a major prominent software team has to consider changing the license to a non-free one just to be able to pay their developers to keep working, whilst corporations all around them make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, using their work??
The AGPLv3 lets you use software for any purpose. Are you saying everyone should pay for Apache or Linux?
The new license forces IaaS providers to open source everything--Amazon would have to make AWS open source.
Basically, it's a matter of wanting to release it as free software but also have it be proprietary software and so not really free. This is like when Oracle released Java under GPL and then sued Google for not paying for Java.
Er, this is nothing like what Oracle has/is done. This is purely a strike against AWS and others who snatch open source systems, apply a veneer of closed source stuff and try and sell it as a service, usually while attempting to dissuade anyone from running it themselves and just "move to the cloud".
If one is an AWS, then one would be prohibited from snatching Mongo (or other covered things), renaming it and selling it as a service. If one is just using Mongo for whatever and not selling it as a direct service, nothing changes. Their FAQ is pretty clear about all this and makes their intent crystal clear.
> This left-wing screen (which is not news, let alone news for nerds) ignores that companies don't "extract" value from a market.
Except that's exactly what they do: It's called "Profit." Profit is the extracted value in excess of the materials and labor the thing they sold cost. The fact that you are willing to pay in excess of what something is materially worth because its convenient doesn't mean it's not extracting value from you. Just the opposite, in fact.
Note this is not necessarily a bad thing; That profit can be applied to other things, and so the extracted value ultimately recycled back into the economy. It's when people take that extracted value and remove it from the economy that we have a problem...
=Smidge=
I'd wager the objection stems from "extract" almost always being used in a negative way. While you correct in your analysis, some people tend to use "extract" in much the same way that others would say that "profit is theft"
Imagine if you could create an environment where more women want to choose be engineers.
Could it be possible that the existing pool of talented engineers could modify their behaviours a little and nearly double the overall talent pool?
No, it wouldn't be possible. Is it possible that some environments are not overly welcoming? Sure, but that's life. The reality is that out of *all* the women I've known in my entire life probably no more than 15% (That's being wildly generous) are even remotely interested in this field. If there was this vast untapped pool of women who want to be in the technical fields but are simply kept out by the evil misogyny, why is it that the idea of even finding a proverbial "geek girl" is thought super hard to the point of cliche? If this pool existed, wouldn't it be logical to think that finding such people wouldn't be such a challenge as it is, even if they weren't actively working in the field?
Are there such people? Yes, absolutely. I do know some. Yet, even in the circles I run in which tend to run heavy with tech and gaming and related people, it is already rare. How much more so in the general population then?
It'd be lovely if it wasn't this way. It'd be great. It'd be awesome. I wish it weren't this way. Yet, it is. I won't postulate on why it is this way. I just know that this is the observation I and all I've talked to directly and indirectly have had.
Apologies for the wrong-think, but it's almost as if you just pointed out why the western notion of diversity is total nonsense.
Report at once to the re-orientation camp for immediate corrective right-think. Heathen.
(For those who have had their sense of humor purged at a previous camp, this was a joke. It is not meant to be taken seriously. See Right-Think Publication 1784357 for more information.)
Frankly, I think this has very little to do with women or any other underrepresented group. It's mostly about a small group of loudmouths who believe that they know what's best for everybody. It's a power-play for no other reason than self-gratification.
I've had the privilege of working under female leadership on multiple occasions. Their immunity various complaints that men have to be wary of allows them to be blunt, direct, strict and extremely demanding. It was eye-opening and refreshing. I have a feeling female Linus would just laugh at all of this.
A female Linus would be *able* to laugh at this. A female Linus would be held up as being direct, strong, and so on for doing the exact same things.
Part of me can't help but think that all this has done is hand certain types of people a thermonuclear bomb any time they want to use it. As I said in the previous thread on this, if anyone thinks that people of *NON-PROTECTED CLASS* won't be scared of criticizing any member of *PROTECTED CLASS* they haven't been paying attention. This will be even truer if someone who is a known hard-core SJW type is involved. Criticizing them would be taking your career in your hands, something to be avoided
Assumed? Well that depends...
So is Torvalds being exceptionally abusive toward women and discouraging them from contributing, or is he equally abusive toward everyone and that is seen as more likely to discourage the women than men? Because in the latter case it makes the sexist assumption that women are fragile little things that need to be protected more so than the rest of us.
I believe it is the latter. While I fully admit to not having hard evidence either way in front of me, I am also sure that if The New Yorker had such they would have most definitely included it in an article whose stated purpose was covering exactly that. They didn't, thus it isn't overly unreasonable to logically assume such doesn't exist. Given the mailing lists are all public, this is an assumption that could be verified.
Does anyone know of any case of any time that anyone was 'beat down' on the mailing lists for being female or some other protected class? Is there any evidence of that happening for that reason in particular?
This is exactly why I am advocating to address this ambiguity. Urgently.
Agreed 100%
What I think would depend on standard of rigor we apply. It is not beyond reasonable doubt that CoC is genuine. On the balance of probabilities? Well, that is harder to answer, as the body of work is there to weight against it.
However, I don't think our choices are reject CoC or adopt CoC as written in stone. Rejecting it will all but ensure GG-like scorched earth war. We also don't have to adopt it as it is immutable and surrender all control of it to SJW.
I think the right approach is to adopt it and fix it in a way that makes abusing it harder. This way we can claim that we faithfully implemented CoC while frustrating ulterior motives.
That seems logical by in large. I think the difference is limited to my thought would be write a more logical and less ambiguous one from the start vice adopting one that is deeply flawed and modifying it. I can see the reasoning there, as you cay, it makes it possible to say that "We tried your way". Of course, I suspect the most ardent supporters will decry all changes. One can only go so far to appease though
I often call out SJW on their flawed thinking in this regard, so it is only fair I call you out when you make the same mistake. Just because someone is Notorious Social Justice Warrior and done many SJW things, it doesn't mean that CoC they wrote is necessary flawed. People tend to be more than one thing. If it is possible to be a raging asshole and brilliant coder, then it also follows that it is possible to be a raging SJW and write good CoC.
While I am not asserting that this CoC is good, I am asserting that we shouldn't criticize it solely based on political views of its author.
I think the best defense against SJW is to implement this CoC then work on refining it. Fix the areas where it is ambiguous or invites abuses. Like imprecise scope definition.
While I generally agree with your reasoning, I think it needs pointing out that were it just the CoC it would be one thing. It's the totality of the CoC, PMM and other things which sets a pattern that is worth examining and sheds light onto other areas. I'm not entirely sure one can be completely isolated from the other in this instance, even if the idea is sound in the general case.
I would rather write a CoC that needs less fixing in the first place than adopt one that appears deeply flawed, rife with fairly open definitions to the point of meaning anything. While it may not have been intentional, I do wonder if such ambiguity was intentional.
Do you think the CoC and PMM, both written by the same person and which appear to contain the same values, aren't linked in values and purpose? We're not really talking about a case where a person wrote some random article with questionable conclusions and then went on to write something else. We're talking about a person who has taken a particular political position and actively works to push it forward using these tools and the behaviors they tend to engender. Would you say this is mistaken?
One really can't discuss the wording of the CoC without discussing the Contributor Covenant and the larger philosophical goals of the Post-Meritocracy manifesto
I think you can. Nothing in CoC states that you must also adopt the manifesto. Sure, this CoC was produced by dubious people with very questionable intentions. Likewise, GPL license is based on Stallman's ideas. This doesn't mean that we have to adopt all of the Stallman's extreme views about software in their entirety. I am still hopeful that sanity will prevail and it won't go past CoC. However, I do understand and share your concerns.
You're correct, the CoC doesn't absolutely require adopting the PMM. However, it would be very hard to ignore the fact that both were written by the same person with the same overall agenda in mind and what the previous person said is 100% correct, this is a political agenda and has nothing to do with technology and only relates to being respectful to people insofar as the ways in which that advances the political agenda in question.
The previous "code" Linux had was fine. If a change was needed, an amendment of "Also, don't be a dick" would have worked. However, they have ripped out a code which specifically called for quality and good engineering above all and replaced it with one written by someone who is, by their own words a "Notorious Social Justice Warrior". I don't know the person, I could be misinterpreting their words and maybe it is tongue-in-cheek. I tend to doubt it.
This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces
when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of
representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail
address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
representative at an online or offline event.
Looks good. So if you are not acting on behalf of the project, use official project email for communication, or were officially appointed representative, then your conduct has no relationship with this. Extreme example - Nazi would still be able to contribute as long as Nazi-related speech is kept out of commits, discussions, mailing list, and group events.
Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Ugh, what? Why bother defining the above applicability rules and then inserting this gigantic "scope is what project maintainers decide the scope is"? This seems like a huge flaw that has to be fixed.
You've confused a feature with a bug. That isn't a flaw. That's entirely by design. It gives the impression of being defined, but ultimately allows it to be fudged however the political winds are blowing. Neat, no?
Your argument fails in the fact perhaps that guy with the man bun or a fedora and attended those code camps are actually a brilliant person who can really contribute.
Or you do want Linux coded by all guys with a short hair cut, suites, and has PHDs.
Coding is 25% intelligence and 75% effort. If someone is willing to do the effort then they should be able to contribute, if their code is crap, then don't put it in. As their current contribution didn't meet the standards needed for this deployment.
They should feel free to learn and try again, perhaps the next time they may have something brilliant.
Good coding is a combination of experience and intelligence with a side of knowledge.
If you think people won't be afraid to openly criticize code if it comes from *PROTECTED CLASS* when one is a member of *NOT-PROTECTED CLASS* then you've clearly not been paying attention to this part of the world.
It'd be nice to be wrong with this. It'd be nice for the SJWs not to eat this. It'd be nice if merit and not other considerations was the only determining factor. It'd be nice. It'd also be surprising
I'm guessing chairman Pao would be much happier with the Chinese model. They do after all censor all the social media for "positive impact" and "protecting a small subset of users".
Are those really the only two possibilities, totalitarian censorship or horrifying trollscape? With all the ingenuity of Silicon Valley and the rest of mankind, and that's all we can come up with?
I think we can do better; the biggest obstacle to finding a better solution is the belief that one does not exist.
This isn't something that can or should be fixed with technology or silencing the opposition. Myself, I don't think "hate speech" should be banned. When one bans something like that one doesn't actually make it go away, all one does is drive it underground. The correct and only workable solution is to confront it and destroy it on equal footing. If the posters of such speech truly have no real value, they will be driven out. Can one change the minds of the propagators of such things? Probably not. Though, that wouldn't be the point. One doesn't argue against such to change their minds, but to hopefully change the minds of anyone listening and banning such doesn't have a chance of doing that.
What else are those people going to do?
Upgrade less often.
If I upgrade every 4 to 6 years instead of every 2 to 3 years, then Apple is selling half as many computers. Why would they want to do that?
A lack of hardware updates and such doesn't matter.
Except that they are a hardware company.
Their sales are still strong with little to no new investment.
Wrong. Sales of Mac hardware is stagnant. The Mac Pro line is dead, with infinitesimal sales. They make almost all their money from phones ... which they upgrade regularly.
Interesting. I was unaware their Mac sales were in the can. In that case... Yeah, I've got nothing here
As a society, we have become obsessed with never-ending growth and progress.
That is not the issue here. Just because hardware is updated every year doesn't mean people need, or want, to upgrade that often. But when their old hardware finally needs to be replaced, they shouldn't have to buy a "new" computer based on tech from two years ago.
I really don't understand Apple's strategy. They have a huge locked-in customer base, and high profit margins. Any other hardware manufacturer would love to be in their position. They could be making a lot of money by releasing more often. Yet they don't. It doesn't make sense.
Seems to make plenty of sense. It's contained within what you said right here: "huge locked-in customer base". What else are those people going to do? Move to Windows? Linux? They're solid Mac users. A lack of hardware updates and such doesn't matter. Their sales are still strong with little to no new investment. That base is more than happy to keep paying more and getting less.
If you claim safety is magically improved then I would like a citation. Not sure how you get 4 points for your opinion based on "a person who believes electrification..." blah blah. I was a contractor at the plant working 14 hour days for a long time and I was shocked by their standards for safety. I was also surprised at Tesla's lax protocols and their eagerness to import the cheapest workers from wherever. I also got a kick out of the profane gangster rap workers would blast from radios stationed at different pitches. Tesla badly needs a union in my opinion. There are a lot of things they are still learning about building cars and I saw things that would never fly at any other auto plant. The union would definitely improve things.
I'll provide citations since you don't. What is this crap? They don't vet the people working for a contract house so you end up with undocumented workers in the plant working obscene hours in dangerous locations. This kind of stuff doesn't happen in UAW or Japanese plants...
http://www.teslarati.com/tesla...
You post as an AC and give a single cite which itself says that Tesla was not at fault, according to OSHA, for the incident. Were you trying to prove your point or just hoping no one would bother to actually read your cite.
What's more, I'd be very very surprised if every UAW and Japanese plant is a paradise of safety and wonderfulness where no one is ever hurt and no one ever feels over worked and so on. I've been to at least one such plant, small sample I know, and I can easily imagine standing at that line all day and thinking that I'm all kinds of overworked.
Your cite, such as it is, mentions that some workers claimed they were being paid as little as $5/hr which is of course under minimum wage. However, they are also contractors paid by a different company and not Tesla. Even if their claims are true, which in my opinion is doubtful, the sub-contractor is at fault not Tesla.
Your cite is ultimately not much of a cite. I'd say "try again" but since you posted AC you won't even see this response.
But there is a question of balance. $21/hour in the Bay Area isn't much, but with a little overtime it isn't terrible for a low to no skill job. It also isn't that different than $25/hour after union dues. Ergonomics and on the job injury are dealt with by workers comp, and the company eventually has an incentive to address material issues, especially in California.
While I like living in California and many of the protections it offers workers, it is already a lot like being in a union. Why add the extra layer of crooks to the mix?
Not only that, but absent a very very tight job market, if Tesla is really paying so poorly for the area and treating everyone so badly then why work from them? If they aren't having any trouble getting employees then either they have one hell of a PR department to cover these awful awful conditions or.. maybe those awful conditions don't exist and the UAW just wants another source of dues?
Exactly he's complaint is not against Unions per se but against someone who purposely got hired by Tesla for the expressed purpose of instigating Unionization.
As it stands, it still begs the question: why? If you are of the conviction that all workers should be encouraged to be in a union, is it wrong to try to convince others that they should join? IOW, does freedom of speech only hold for the right kind of opinions? Taking a job with Tesla so you can talk to your colleagues about joining a union is no different than going to any other place to argue for your particular opinions; or going to another country as a missionary. Is that morally wrong?
In very general terms and most cases, missionaries don't show up in another country telling people they're structural engineers or the like and then proselytize. Is that sometimes the case, yes I imagine it happens for reasons of safety and such. I'm sure you could try and make the comparison that what this person may have done is exactly the same thing, entering hostile territory under false pretenses. Whether that comparison is accurate or not doesn't actually change the base fact that it is dishonest and arguably immoral.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, no one is saying this person can't agitate for unions at all, but whether or not he was paid to go in as an agent of the UAW to take employment under false pretenses purely to advance the agenda of the UAW. It's one thing if the workers at Tesla hated life and figured the only way to fix things were to bring in the UAW and it's something else entirely if the UAW said to itself, "There's an untapped source of union dues!", and decided to pull some shenanigans.
So Say We ALL.
SO SAY WE ALL!
That is maybe the dumbest thing I have read in a while.
That's one perspective. Another perspective is, since you clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, your opinion on the perspicacity of my argument doesn't carry a lot of weight.
"for the sake of liberty give up your rights" That's some strange doublethink.
Particularly given that that quote "for the sake of liberty give up your rights" can't be found in any of the things I said. Unless you think that the DELUSION that guns enhance your liberty is what you have a right to - that you think you have a right to be deluded and not have anybody tell you.
To be frank, I know exactly what you're talking about and the reasoning behind it and I still agree with him. He said it more directly than I did, but what you're saying makes absolutely no logical sense and the proposed solution the an agreed problem and issue does nothing at all to address the issue at hand.
I've always found it odd that the people who are most afraid of non-state actors carrying are usually the ones who also want more and more State and centralized power and authority. Thoughts?
I think you are both right and wrong.
Right in the sense that in most places around the world, people long for the rule of law (proper rule of law, not crude, mocking replicas) and the presence of armed militias, warlords and strongmen are a key factor in the prevention of this foundational democratic principle. The reality of guns replacing the rule of law is made concrete in the Congo, or the Sudan, or Syria. We can't get our way, so we'll shoot people who disagree with us, without reference the rule of law, the congress of the people, negotiation and compromise, let alone being elected based on your ideologies and theories.
Wrong in the sense that in America, regardless of what I imagine is an earnest desire for democracy, it is the american idea of the gun that has led to the present tyranny. Not the guns themselves (neither here nor there), and not really the individuals that carry them, who are often quite ordinary. But the idea that having guns will prevent the degradation of democracy, the idea of american exceptionalism, the mythology of the american revolution, these have led to blind complacency and even denial of the seriousness of these depredations, these erosions, these desecrations of the sacred principles of democracy. Why do americans meekly accept the slaver's yolk? Because of their delusional attachment to guns as a mainstay of protecting a democracy that they are simultaneously failing. Failing to protect and uphold by means which (unlike guns) are actually effective!
For the sake of freedom, for the sake of liberty, for the sake of the dignity of man, throw away your guns.
Er... What?
There are many reasons why things seem to be heading in a less Liberty oriented direction but I'm reasonably sure the ownership of guns isn't one of them. I can't say I've ever heard a single person say anything even remotely like "Well, that latest violation of the principals of Liberty is totally okay because I have my AR-15!" Even if a person said such a thing they'd be rightfully laughed at as the idea is ludicrous.
The closest anyone has come to such a statement is that the Second Amendment provides an ultimate last resort option in the event that government went too far. Each person's limit of too far is likely different, but that doesn't even remotely justify the idea that present conditions can rightfully be traced to a "delusional attachment to guns as a mainstay of protecting a democracy"
What makes you believe that to be the case? What's more, even if that were true, logically throwing away ones guns wouldn't change anything and the correct course of action would be to get more involved in elections and pay more attention to things.