> As much as I sometimes criticize FB and Google over privacy issues, they also do a lot of good by realeasing open source systems.
You realize that they do this so top researchers still want to work for them?
You realize that they do this so top researchers still want to work for them?
HN crowd doesn’t accept that, but most people here have no idea about how business works.
* I'm confused by why you bring up tax-payer funded education... do you think these employees don't pay taxes?
* What is your definition of "valuable"?
1. Give free tools to people 2. Drive adoptions of tools 3. ??? (Data-driven pivot) 4. Profit
The public benefits from it, and they get to hire researchers that want to continue that work. It sounds like a win-win?
It's like our economy and its effect on the climate. Win-win for consumers and companies, but (without intervention) a downward spiral for our planet.
Also, it puts us in a morally difficult situation because we are benefiting from the ones we criticize, and as such, it is hypocritical.
Of course everyone can do as they please, but in my view it is best to look for moral-issue-free software instead of using BigCorp's candy-ware.
However, pushing it out surely does enhance the public knowledge - in the same way that Carmack released his 3d engines that were out dated in industry by one gen but still helped the public.
Lastly - they need to push it out as they need to attract top talent, and need to demonstrate they have top tech there (and are willing to let their researchers claim credit for it once it becomes old enough).
What moral difficulties do you see? My opinion is these companies are despicable but taking advantage of their generosity is not hypocritical. Applications and motives can be immoral, tools without human action simply exist.
Tools exist because of human action.