HN user
Sorry, that doesn’t explain anything.
Issuing shares often increases valuations, and Tesla is more than just a car company because they have invested in electric drivetrains, battery technology, and self-driving, as well as other product and manufacturing improvements.
“Memed it into existence” is still gibberish.
“That does leave open the question of Musk, and the way he seemed to meme Tesla into existence, while building a rocket ship on the side…”
Meme Tesla into existence? He bought in to an already existing electric car company and then managed it very well in ways that had already been demonstrated by Apple. The idea that he ‘memed’ it into existence seems like utter gibberish.
It’s a great way to make money out of crypto!
Some people copy and paste other people’s profile info into their profiles.
I see. So it seems like a good reason to change the names is so people don't lose marks over spelling mistakes.
No matter the logical mistakes people are doing while reading your comment, that's not what is important.
It's not the only thing that is important, but it is still important. If you can't understand the logic of something, that is on you to improve your skills. If you made this mistake with what I wrote, then you will be making the same mistake elsewhere, often without knowing it.
What is important is understanding each other, and we apparently didn't get your point.
People don't get each other's points all the time. This a is normal part of discussion.
You could rephrase it so we can understand what you want to say. You are telling us that we are wrong in our interpretation of your logical statement but that won't help us understand it.
Are you saying you still don't understand it now that it has been explained?
We are not trolling you or in bad faith.
How do you know what is going on inside other commenters heads?
Because he referenced the GPL, which includes such a clause indicating that there is no quality beyond the source that constitutes the property.
That clause means that the author of the code isn’t legally liable for defects.
How is this relevant at all to the article? Nobody is talking about legal action.
> He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.
That's circumstantial, like most things in life.
Obviously. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter, nor that we shouldn’t discuss it.
You continue to argue in bad faith along every one of these digressions from the article.
Generally when someone complains about an argument being in bad faith it means they are personally invested in defending something they think is under attack. It’s not clear to me what you think you are defending.
Also, aside from credit, it just makes it harder to research the history. I mean did someone else discover Maxwell’s equations, and Plank’s constant who we are overlooking?
Do we need to stop using the word algorithm, and replace it with say, “procedural recipe”?
Worth noting that around $3M a day of twitter’s losses exist only to pay the debt Elon himself took on. Why would Twitter employees be working to pay for Elon to be CEO rather than for their own lunches?
Did autocomplete mess up your comment? It looks like it needs some editing.
is true if and only if the resources required to modify the browser are equivalent to the resources required to build it from scratch
This is not logically correct. Let’s consider two statements:
1. If you are fit enough, you can run a mile in less than 5 minutes.
2. If you are fit enough, you can run a 100 mile ultramarathon.
Both statements are true, but clearly the level and kind of fitness required to do one is different from the other.
This is a weird piece. It’s not clear why Gensler should have been trying to ‘stop’ FTX. Seems like just innuendo.
It’s not clear why you’re taking about warranties.
It’s strange to suggest that bad code is good because it provides a chance for others to fix it.
It’s also obviously not true that if developers wrote great code the first time we wouldn’t need open source.
On the contrary, that would make open source far more valuable because it would be easier for people to add to or modify, and a better example for newcomers.
The author is not attacking the existence of open source. He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.
https://tinlizzie.org/IA/index.php/End-User_Programming_by_A...
Here is one of many places where Alan Kay talks about making programming available to everyone.
It’s a good starting point for work exploring the deeper idea of enabling people to ‘bend software to their wills’.
For sure. And presumably those projects are ones in which maintaining a fork is practical. I have both forked and suggested forking.
However for many projects ‘just fork it’ is not a good faith suggestion, so it can’t be a blanket answer that applies to all FOSS.
Maybe nobody says that exact thing, but people do often say things like “if you don’t like it you can fork it”, as a way of shutting down discussions.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect an open-source maintainer to create a better development experience for you than the one they use themselves.
This is clearly true. I didn’t read him as demanding that. I think his point is that the fact that something is FOSS doesn’t alone imply that anyone else can actually do anything with it, so people should either not make that claim, or acknowledge what else is needed.
Where the critique doesn't make sense is trying to say these issues are specific to FOSS
This is just not a logical reading of his argument. He is saying FOSS is necessary but not sufficient. His argument can clearly only apply to FOSS and doesn’t apply to other kinds of software.
Saying that's "not enough" is very entitled, and missing the point.
Except that’s not what he’s saying. You are responding to the title of the piece but not that argument it makes.
He’s saying FOSS is not enough to empower people in general to hack on software and bend it to their will.
It’s not clear what you mean by ‘entitled’ in this context.
You seem to be validating the original complaint - that FOSS alone doesn’t empower people the way it is often claimed.
As for looking a gift horse in the mouth, you may not be aware of how much that sentiment devalues FOSS. The implication being that as long as it’s free, it doesn’t matter how bad it is.
None of these issues are specific to F/LOSS, so the post reads like a rant from an entitled user.
The right mindset to begin with should be one of gratitude that developers are granting you these freedoms which you don't get with the majority of consumer software nowadays.
By this logic, FOSS is always impervious to criticism because non FOSS is worse.
That’s not an argument against the premise of the article.
Amusingly the same number as for the legal code used to involuntarily detain someone for psychiatric evaluation.
So no.
Is there a link to evidence of this?
lol but reposting half an article as a comment is
You seem to be confused about who you are replying to.
You just claimed to know how it works and that your opinion is correct.
No I didn’t. This is easily googled and not a matter of my opinion. You don’t need to take my word for it.
Surely if it's common practice for brands to stop advertising on media that are "uncool", there must have been events in the past that have taught them a lesson.
That doesn’t logically follow. It’s simply about avoiding negative associations. Brand damage is hard to repair, so brand advertising by established brands tends to be conservative - I.e. they don’t advertise in questionable places and wait for the damage.
Brand marketing is about building associations in peoples minds. Again - don’t take my word for it - do some reading about branding.
There is no other interpretation. "not enough" implies there should be MORE, which is a requirement. The requirement is never elucidated.
Yes it is. At the top of the article he says:
People will often claim that since X is Free and Open Source Software, every user of X is enabled to hack on it and bend it to their will.
Which is basically the same goal as Alan Kay had for smalltalk systems. Why is it so controversial to say we haven’t reached this goal?
No. I didn’t equate those things.
Edit: It’s not clear why you think I did.
I’d prefer the press reports it more reasonably too, however it is a conspiracy theory, so why shouldn’t they say so?
No, that’s not what I said.
I don’t understand why people are reading some requirement for them to accommodate something into this post.
He’s simply making the case that as things stand, open source doesn’t enable people to do much with the code if they aren’t part of the project itself.
For the most part that seems true. Why is it such a problem for him to say it?