Not open source
There are lots of good reasons to be upset with how Signal produces builds. And maybe Signal has no good reason why they keep opaque dependencies. But by every common definition of the term, Signal is open source. Being on FDroid is not the definition of open source.
Please don’t gatekeep. There are better ways to criticize Signal. This is not one of them.
This reads a lot like the Indiana Pi Bill. Granted, that one never passed, but it’s a pretty old story: politicians think they know better than experts.
Neat article. It’s a bummer pumped hydro doesn’t get the love I think it deserves. Hopefully it gets a bit more soon.
But now I have a new pet peeve: when an author defines initialisms that are never used more than once outside of their definition.
Agreed; that’s the challenge. I don’t have a full answer, but I do know that it involves having something to work towards, not just something to fight against.
How can a group of people give that to other people, when you don’t mean equal rights?
Because the point of the post is mental health, not the merits of egalitarianism. I just wanted to point out that, for the gross majority of human history, men’s muscles and reproductive expendability were uniquely valuable traits. With automation and intellectual pursuits, those traits aren’t quite so necessary.
Or am I misunderstanding?
There’s more to how people express or feel value. For example, these are some virtues people seem to value: honor, respect, trust, accomplishment, pride, duty, loyalty.
Money is just one way an employer can convey value to their employees or a customer coveys value to a business. It may come as a shock, but outside of those relationships, money isn’t actually all that valuable.
Imagine someone being your friend just because you give them money… That’s what I mean.
Didn’t mention the state, but it’s also relevant…
A group of people (e.g. organization, community, society, corporation, government, etc.) is capable of collectively attributing value. People need to feel valued. Therefore a group of people is capable of fulfilling people’s need to feel valued.
I’m not proposing a mandate, just a practical accounting.
Well said. We all spend a lot of time criticizing, and not enough time building up. Here are a few more (rather heavily paraphrased) ways to be a good person that I feel strongly about:
Admire people who recognize their insufficiency, mourn, show humility, seek justice, are merciful, have a pure heart, work for peace, or are oppressed for doing the right thing.
Understand you’re incapable of perfection, and so is everybody else.
If you’re angry with someone, call them an idiot, or curse them, beware of the consequences.
Settle conflict with others quickly before it escalates.
Be faithful to all your vows in both thought and action.
Resist the urge for vengeance; flip the script by going above and beyond for those who take advantage of you.
Give to those who ask for help or want to borrow what you have.
Stand out from the crowd by showing kindness and compassion to those who hate you.
Agreed. However, something has to be said for the fact that a lot of American society and economy has shifted value away from “dangerous” or otherwise physically demanding labor (e.g. coal mining, farm field work before automation) towards jobs that don’t depend on how much muscle mass you have or other expressions of sex hormones. That value system was encoded into cultural norms and media, which, without the corresponding environment, just became a caricature.
The problem of focusing too much on the culture is that we miss what shaped it in the first place: a need to feel valued. If men aren’t valued for their physique (or, to be frank, their biological expendability), then what’s their value? The Left was too afraid of ruining their Feminist credibility to offer any serious solutions. Meanwhile, the Right leaned in to that caricature, and offered a solution full of misogyny and arrogance. When presented a choice between an awful solution and no solution, it’s no wonder so many men fell prey to toxicity.
We need more non-toxic masculinity.
Fair enough, political definitions are rarely well-defined.
I guess people often use it to mean the more internet-savvy, meme-posting, trolling right wing.
Yeah, that’s how I understood it… Not really something Eich seems to do much.
I’m not sure why anybod would think it’s not connected.
Just because Eich has awful views doesn’t give license to also be awful by throwing around random other accusations or connecting him with trolling skinheads. Remember, even the Nuremberg Trials had defense attorneys, so let’s stick to the high road of justice, not the shitty cesspool that the far right wants to drag us into.
Please, go back and carefully read what I wrote. I’ve said nothing about whether I find Eich’s donation morally acceptable or not, let alone anything beyond that. You seem quick to condemn on nothing more than circumstance. The far-left is just as illiberal, regressive, and unjust as the far-right.
Beware of groupthink. It makes for smooth brains.
Congrats! You’ve made a formal fallacy while sounding antagonistically patronizing!
There are only two hard problems in distributed systems: 2. Exactly-once delivery 1. Guaranteed order of messages 2. Exactly-once delivery.
Martin Fowler has a pretty good collection of these.
In my experience, anybody who claims morality is “clear cut” is probably naive, otherwise they’re selling a cult. The fact that you think my line is questioning is suspicious without knowing anything about me or anything beyond this thread makes me suspect it’s the latter, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
Yes, it’s a philosophical debate. That’s why I’m here, on the Internet, asking philosophical questions, to spur debate.
I agree, it ought to be a hard line.
Question is, though, where’s the line? We don’t all come with the same exact moral compass, and we’re all perfectly capable of rationalizing evil, so you can’t just say “be a moral and non-bigoted person” and expect the desired outcome. Plenty of slave owners worldwide were convinced that slavery was not just morally admissible but even admirable.
No matter where that line is, it needs to be well-defined and agreed-upon, or else it’s arbitrary, and thus open to abuse and corruption by demagogues.
Sure, but “alt-right” means something specific, and I was missing the jump of reason … but this thread has gotten pretty heated, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised people were weirdly upset by what I thought was an innocent question.
Oh well, it’s the internet, after all.
So, not trying to sympathize with Eich here, where do you get “alt-right” from?
…or the cost of unethical behavior is greater than the cost of ethical behavior. In either case, we can’t rely on the “ethical behavior” of any organization without changing the rules of the game.
Following that logic:
Many popular Linux distros contain closed source blobs. Ergo Linux is closed source.