I am sympathetic with the sentiment so I am hardly going to discourage anyone from doing this, but it is not clear who could still be convinced at this point.
Yeah, I had been willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt that this was all part of a big joke, until I saw that the rest of their blog postings are also just like this one.
What happens if you use an out of range array subscript a[n]? Does that always return an option type?
I think that you would be surprised by the amount you would learn if you spent five minutes actually trying to answer your own questions, instead of treating them as proof that you just made a relevant point merely by asking them.
I am really confused by what is going on here. Was Neo4j the original author of the code? Because if so, then they can license their own code however they like. The potential sticking point would be if they represented the license as being AGPL3 when it is not because this would be fundamentally misleading, and it sounds like the court agrees that this is a valid concern because it awarded a partial summary judgement that, "The court did affirm that a license created by combining the AGPL with other non-open-source terms cannot be called 'free and open source.'"
It is noteworthy that apparently the Free Software Foundation did not think that this legal case was worth intervening in.
Also, the event you cited happened half a century ago. Does that mean that the conclusions of the medical research community simply never get to be trusted ever again until... something?
One does not have to trust the CDC; there are plenty of other sources one can get information from. To conclude that vaccines cause autism, one actually has to be extremely selective about ones sources. Put another way: the problem is not that people are not trustful enough, but that they are too trustful.
You seem to be very critical of my supposed mocking, but I have not mocked anyone for not trusting the CDC, so perhaps a little less projection is in order.
To add nuance to my comment: I think that Linus mismanaged the conflict, and that this was a significant and avoidable factor in Marcan getting burned out. For an example of how Linus could have approached this instead: he could have publicly criticized both Marcan and Hellwig at the same time, rather than first publicly criticizing Marcan and then only after Marcan left publicly criticizing Hellwig for his own behavior. This probably would have made Marcan feel less picked on and less likely to have been burnt out. (Or maybe not; I do not claim to deal in certainties.)
Why would you marry a bad spouse? You should figure that out before you marry them.
So you are saying that everyone has a perfect ability to flawlessly determine whether another person is a good spouse for them or not? That is an impressive feat, especially considering that, by definition, said person cannot be their spouse until they have already married them, making evaluation difficult.
(Of course, a partial solution to this is to live with a potential marriage partner for several years beforehand in order to get a chance to at least do a thorough evaluation, but this is not a solution that "traditionalists" tend to be happy with.)
How about this, what’s the point of marriage? If it can be discarded at a whim, what does it mean in the first place?
Divorce is not that easy or cheap, even when it is no-fault. It is hardly ever something done "at a whim"--outside of places like Vegas where people also tend to get married on a whim, in addition to making other bad life choices.
I mean the problem with this entire discussion is marriage has no standard meaning anymore. Traditionalists think of it as a sacred vow, taking till Death do us part very seriously. Others think of it as some irrelevant social construct and an excuse to have a party.
I doubt that there are nearly as many people in the latter camp as you seem to think that there are, especially given that marriage has legal ramifications, making it nontrivial to get out of even under the best of circumstances (again, unless maybe you got married on a whim in Vegas).
I’m in the camp of it’s forever or it it’s pointless. Life is change. People change. The work that goes into marriage is the work of ensuring you grow together, not grow apart. I wouldn’t marry anyone that didn’t agree.
This presumes that both spouses act in good faith, which will not always be the case. One spouse may not turn out to be as committed as the other spouse in practice in putting in this work, and this is the kind of thing that is not easy to find out until years in, so declaring that "You should figure that out before you marry them." is both callous and impractical.
In the most extreme case of bad faith, one of the spouses might reveal themselves over time to be an abuser, and this might not even be obvious to the outside world if the abuse is emotional rather than physical so that there are no bruises that can be pointed to for proof. So your proposal that the abused spouse not have the freedom to walk away from the marriage without immediately losing everything to their abuser--unless perhaps they are allowed go through an ugly and painful legal battle to prove that they are being emotionally been abused by their spouse and therefore their spouse is at fault in which case they might be allowed to walk away without losing everything--is incredibly cruel.
In fact, let me be really explicit about what I am getting at here: the real risk, as I see it, is not that you will marry someone else who will divorce you "at a whim", but that someone else will marry you, after which it will turn out that you are the asshole in that relationship, and, based on the things you have just said in this thread, you will then do everything in your power to trap your spouse in that marriage. This is a big reason why no-fault divorce laws exist: to protect other people from you.
Of course, if you disagree with me and you believe that the real risk is that you will marry someone else who will change their mind and discard you on a whim, and not the scenario I described in the previous paragraph, then I would suggest that "You should figure that out before you marry them." If you do that successfully, after all, then what do you have to fear?
So you are saying that if you turn out to be such a bad spouse that you make your partner so miserable that they absolutely have to leave the marriage, then you should get to keep everything and they should get nothing?
I am sympathetic with the sentiment so I am hardly going to discourage anyone from doing this, but it is not clear who could still be convinced at this point.