It’s probably a good idea to have a stronger definition and mission. Here are a few scenarios you should consider.
FSF defines anything that’s not copyleft as hostile. That’s most companies. I personally don’t think I can tell my users what to do with my software other than remove my liability so I vehemently disagree with Stallman.
Mongo wrote the SSPL and MariaDB wrote the BSL. Both licenses are seen as regressions. I personally respect the MariaDB case and have been harassed by too many Mongo salespeople to say the same about them.
Platforms like AWS are the reason companies like CockroachDB and Elastic implemented restrictive licenses.
IBM has been gutting open source through its acquisition of Red Hat. This is a common story; Oracle has been screwing *nix longer.
Protecting trademarks causes a lot of consternation from users. The Rust Foundation is the most recent example of this I remember blowing up the FOSS community.
I like your idea a lot. I think it needs some definition to be very successful!
I have attended or been involved with five different state universities and a few different community colleges. For computer science, aside from one glaring exception, the default has been some flavor of Linux. The earliest for me at a school was Fedora 7. I think they had been running Solaris in the late 90s; not sure what was before that.
The only glaring exception is Georgia Tech. Because of the spyware you have to install for tests, you have to use Windows. Windows in a VM can be flagged as cheating. I’m naming and shaming Georgia Tech because they push their online courses hard and then require an operating system that isn’t standard for all the other places I’ve been or audited courses.
No other company will contribute to LXD now. This is 100% a Canonical tool. Were the big clouds looking at deploying LXD so Canonical tried to block them?
I personally use Apache 2.0 because it’s been upheld in court. I’m not sure if MPL has been directly challenged in court. Either way, I agree with the sentiment. The legal perspective is why I moved away from MIT/ISC.
Why are 1 and 3 the correct options? Why are they even correct? Why is 2 wrong? You don’t seem to realize any of the foundation you’re building on and you’ve done nothing other than say “if I provide evidence,” that’s enough.
Here’s a thought experiment. I take you into a closed room, put purple film over a window, and tell you the sky is purple. You’ve now got irrefutable proof that the sky is purple. But wait, you say! I can go outside and find different evidence, so clearly having evidence alone is not enough. We could even sidestep the problem by saying that the sky is colorless; it’s the refraction of the light that makes the color. Different frame; different counter.
If it is so self-evident, you should be able to explain why your faith in evidence trumps anyone else’s faith in anything else. You don’t know why you believe what you believe and you’re completely incapable (so far, based on the evidence you’ve provided) of doing anything beyond “James Randi says it so it must be true.” You seem to blindly believe anything anyone in a position of authority states (courts, insurance always right provided they have a modicum of evidence to support their claim). You pound the “evidence trumps everything” pulpit yet can’t explain why, logically, that might make sense.
You remind me of the evangelicals I’m also not a fan of.
You can’t explain logic so I’m not sure you have an understanding of the arguments you’re attempting to make. I’m not seeing any justification other than “I think it’s it right.” I’ve seen no counters to the quantitative philosophical propositions and a general lack of understanding of any of the things that underpin your belief system. You still haven’t explained why your system is right.
You haven’t shown that an insurance decision is correct. You also didn’t show that a court decision is right. You’re not seeing the forest for the trees.
Your faith is that evidence trumps all. That is a baseless claim unless you can prove it without the structures of evidence-based discourse. You are using logic to prove your statements which is logically equivalent to “god said so.” You argue your beliefs trump theirs; you are equivalent using your foundation. Your religion is logic which, as I have pointed out many times without comment from you, is just as made up as any religion and more importantly has the introspective capabilities to prove so.
This is a fairly straightforward epistemological argument; I’ve run out of ways to say it. Good luck!
All of this continues to go past you. You want to attack the metaphysical for its belief system yet you completely miss when you make the same logical leaps for yours. How can insurance companies prove something? Why are they right? If a court makes a decision, is that the correct one? Prove it. Only you can’t use logic or anything that comes from logical systems because, based on your attacks on religion, you’re not allowed to use the faith to prove the faith.
You’re very focused on religion and seem to be missing all of the points about logic.
not saying that … pretty agnostic
Cool, we’re on the same page.
If someone makes a claim… it needs… evidence
This is problematic without a rigorous definition of evidence. I’m assuming you mean something along the lines of repeatable and independently verifiable since you won’t take a claim at face value. If you’re going to rigorously define evidence, you’re going to need to create a system that can’t contradict itself. Per your quotes, either there is a ball in my hand or there isn’t.
This is called a consistent system. We agree on a set of axioms that we will achieve results from. If we have a consistent system and build a bunch of results on top of that, eventually we’ll run into things that are true but we cannot prove. We know this because of a famous result I’ve already mentioned. In other words, we must take central results on faith. A common one that, several decades ago, was met with ridicule because it was “so illogical” mathematicians had “suspend reality in order for it to make any sense” is the axiom of choice.
In other words, you can’t use logic and reason to say those that believe in religion are idiots because you have just as much proof as they do (just faith) if we accept the basic axioms that drive our logical system.
doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist… isn’t circular logic
You’re conflating a tautology with circular reasoning. Circular reasoning boils down to “A because B; B because A;” and you’ve said “A because A” without any support for A. The lack of something in your hand is not necessary and sufficient to prove the ball’s existence. The only claim we can make is that your hand is empty.
Here is a metaphysical claim for you to chew on: it is possible to know whether or not it is possible to prove a claim.
Again, fundamental misunderstanding of Russell’s Teapot. You’re attempting to talk about proof, using the language of logic, to make sweeping claims that logic cannot make.
If you’re saying we can neither prove nor disprove the metaphysical, we’re on the same page.
If you’re saying the metaphysical doesn’t exist because no one has proved it and they have to prove it first, you don’t understand how logic, as we understand it today, works.
Edit: to highlight your issues a little, “it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist” isn’t logically sound. Unlike Russell’s Teapot, circular logic is an actual, provable fallacy rather than a rhetorical tool that is not a result of logic. More importantly, you’re depending on logic as a system of faith, just like religion, unless you’ve found some results that contradict Gödel and company. We’ve made all of it up and, with our understanding today, it is not objective.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Russell’s Teapot. If someone claims there is a teapot floating in space, cool, they need to prove its existence and the rest of us can go around as if one doesn’t exist. If someone claims there isn’t a teapot floating in space, now the burden of proof is on them. We can quickly exercise some critical thinking and realize that, while there might be a teapot in space someone brought with them and left, it’s not going to be beyond the asteroid belt.
Now do every belief system with empirical evidence. You can’t, primarily because belief in the logic used to prove that empirical evidence is the best evidence is itself a belief system. Changing any one of the axioms that underpin your methodology completely changes the methodology (eg parallel lines meet at infinity turns geometry into hyperbolic geometry). Furthermore, we can extend Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to any formal system, like you’re attempting to employ, and show that they can’t prove themselves.
In other words, we must take things on faith if we want to use logic and pull out statement related to logic like “burden of proof is on the positive.” You can believe whatever the fuck you want; you just can’t prove it and, in most metaphysical cases, you can’t disprove it either.
In all fairness to Pocket Casts, the yearly cost in the US is $40, which is about the monthly cost of the three things you mentioned together. If your country gives you yearly Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium, and Spotify Premium for less than $40 US, that’s a fucking steal.
In all fuck you to Pocket Casts, Basic App functionality like folders shouldn’t be behind a subscription. I can understand a one-time unlock fee for app functionality or ongoing subscription costs to cover cloud storage and sync capabilities. I cannot fucking understand why folders would cost me $40 US a year.
If you want more grimdark and it has to be fantasy, check out Warhammer horror especially the vampire Genevieve. If you’re okay with grimdark science military science fiction, a good chunk of the Warhammer 40k and Horus Heresy lines will fit your bill.
I feel like Hobb is much lighter. For whatever reason I always think of Tad Williams and the Dragonborn Chair as connected to Hobb. I suspect it’s from the Legends anthology but they were only together in Legends II with a different Hobb trilogy setting and Otherland for Williams. Both are great starting points to find authors that have huge bodies of work that could hook you. They were how I found George RR Martin back in the early aughties.