You do know that, when you edit your comment to pretend that you had predicted something in advance, that there is a timestamp showing when you made the change, right?
We’ve played this game with browser engines and we find ourselves in a world with no viable community-controlled browser.
Where would you say Firefox fits into this? (This question is not a gotchya; I am genuinely having trouble seeing whether it is a valid counter-example or not.)
Right, and likewise just because your code was written in C99 does not make it any better than assembly code that accomplished the same task, as long as it was written carefully and audited.
I was responding to the following paragraph in the article:
We used to get proof-of-thought for free because producing a patch took real effort. Now that writing code is cheap, verification becomes the real proof-of-work. I mean proof of work in the original sense: effort that leaves a trail: careful reviews, assumption checks, simulations, stress tests, design notes, postmortems. That trail is hard to fake. [emphasis mine] In a world where AI says anything with confidence and the tone never changes, skepticism becomes the scarce resource.
I am a bit wary that the trail of verification will continue to be so "hard to fake".
Yeah, the transition from the third frame to the fourth frame just doesn't make sense as currently depicted; why would people playing video games suddenly start to revolt?
However, if the third frame were to depict rich men getting richer as you suggest, then the revolt in the fourth frame would make more sense.
I would rather be a moron than someone who calls for others to be tarred and feathered over their choice of an open source software license of all things.
So now you are going to start tarring and feathering anyone who decides to start a project using the MIT license, or at least engage in an equivalent level of verbal violence at every possible opportunity?
Reread that quote, and you will see that I was saying that just because they are required to distribute the source code with binaries--which they are only required to do if they distribute binaries--does not mean that they have to take any steps to contribute the changes they've made to the upstream project.
Okay, but is this group trying to re-write all of the GPL software in the Linux ecosystem with an MIT license? I ask this because I think that the words "first step" are doing a lot of the lifting in your argument.
And just to be clear, my objection is not to people disagreeing with the license; in fact, as I have said elsewhere--though I hardly expect you to have read all of my comments here!--I think that the underlying criticism is actually reasonable, I just also think that the extent of the concern is exaggerated in practice in this specific case (which is why I keep trying to pin people down on specifics rather than generalities). Again, my objection is that people feel the need to post the same inane comments with varying degree of toxicity (such referring to them as using a "cuck" license) complaining about it in every single post.
They're basically like the elves in Tolkien's world: they're the elder race that is wise in a lot of ways, but also have a lot of flaws.