How to let the world be populated by people who can make free decisions about their work and their employer. Nothing to do with negative externalities, unless you think feudalism was particularly green.
The two sides (A grad student, Intel) are not operating on an equal field. As such the "free decisions" aren't really a valid dimension for "free dimensions", as we have to include how unfair the field is in this case (...in all cases).
Intel did 152 BILLION DOLLARS in stock buybacks over 35 years and ruined their own lead. They screwed/squeezed a lot of people so they could juice the stock price - to the point where they lost the semiconductor lead (as that wasn't what they were most worried about - they were mostly concerned with stock price). We need to consider all of these things when we determine if the field is fair for an employee.
Of course it's not equal - it shouldn't be. If you want to be able to seriously negotiate with Intel as an equal, you have to do a lot more than be a grad student.
Why would one grad student have the same power as 10000 employees of a company? Surely when you're finishing with ominous repetition you must know something's a bit off[0].
Yeah, people - in general - tend to do this with anything novel, sadly - especially novel design. See what Steve Balmer said about the iPhone for a commercial example. For Engineering examples, well, see the controversy around anything by Poettering (Systemd, PulseAudio, etc., etc.).
I think it is sort of different, though, Balmer was motivated to minimize the iPhone because they were his competition. It is an attempt to manipulate people. This odd thing where commenters online are never impressed by any tech thing, I’m not sure what the motivation is. They don’t even get a reputation for being so clever and jaded, because they are mostly pseudonymous.
The first iPhone, running iOS v1, was kinda shit. It's easy to look at what the iPhone is today and laugh at Ballmer, but I don't think what he said was wrong at the time he said it.
Are you certain that you're not playing with words to arrive at a predetermined conclusion? What is this "I" to which you're referring and how can you demonstrate that "I" does not or cannot exist within systems such as these? Further, if you are to find something which qualifies as an "I" elsewhere, what makes that elsewhere fundamentally different and therefore capable of supporting and being an "I" and is that elsewhere such simply by definition or in and of itself? Further, if the language usage is indistinguishable from the language usage of an "I", is the difference of source meaningful? If so, why?
The "I" is stemmed from the theory of the mind. We can only access our own mind and thus has no way to infer the thoughts of other. So we observe them and infer based on our own patterns. In a sense, we assume that others have the same mechanism that we possess, and thus we engage in interactions with them. So far, there is no demonstration of reasoning within systems such as these, it's all simulation of the communication channel themselves.
> Further, if the language usage is indistinguishable from the language usage of an "I", is the difference of source meaningful?
Is it indistinguishable? The first thing we look for in communication is consistency so that we can examine for intent. And this is after we determine the other party. Because we know the intent is not ours. But what I've seen of prompt engineering is that the communication intent always come from the person, not the models. Then it goes on to find the most likely continuation of this intent (based on the model training) and then it quickly become an echo chamber. It's search in lexical space and you can see the limits when it became a oscillating loop between the same set of reply. Because there's no "I don't know" damping.
Pratchett really got technology, imo. Sometimes it really is high energy magic, but most of the time it's just labourers you can't see being exploited. I especially enjoyed the line "money dangled is far more effective than money given" or something like that... it's true.
Yes. The (A)GPL is there for a good reason (in part, this one - ensuring one's work and other's work on it remains free and open source and commercial freeloaders can't get a free ride), and trademark law ensures you retain control of your software's brand. MIT and BSD... well, look where they come from - they're not designed with those purposes in mind. If you care about an aspect of a licensing solution, use a license designed and fit for purpose - just as you'd use a library designed and fit for purpose.
AGPL does not stop that kind of use at all, though. As long as you stick to making the application have a quine functionality on all channels, it doesn't matter if the link is 0.01% of text on page compared to SEO spam.
What do you mean by this? If they just wanted to make an example out of him then he gave them a very easy way to "find" to do so, considering we are observing it via satellite maps.
(it's not a basket case because it's nationalised, it's nationalised because it's a basket case - thank the automotive industry - and it's a national security asset)
