Hacker News Reader

Comment by konjin | Hacker News Reader

>For technology to be truly sustainable, it must be globally available and independent. The open distribution of sustainable technology, knowledge and data provides the basis for an ecological and economical global economy. This secures the access to vital resources such as stable climate, soil or water for everyone in the long term.

[[citation needed]]

View on HN

F/OSS isn't so sustainable after all, as in can't sustain itself unless being dominated by a corp.

Yeah, look I'm all for FLOSS, but I don't like this stating conjecture as fact nonsense that is the bread and butter of western elites and technocrats one bit. It poisons the well.

Just out of curiosity, are there any studies on the demographics of FLOSS support? I'm quite curious - with no specific goal in mind - about where the most ardent supporters are, in what fields they work, at what age, and so on.

Your assumption is correct!

The global scientific consensus shows that climate change is a real global problem. The many FLOSS projects on our list show that institutions around the world come to the same conclusion through a variety of open data sets and models. It is true that, as everywhere else, there are black sheep (i.e. Climategate). But these are the exception.

We think that the discussion should include everyone interested in this development, we need an improved way to create "open facts". To keep the scientific discussion and discoveries as open and transparent as possible, we propose to built an "open fact pipeline". As seen in the slides related to this list (slide 10, https://protontypes.eu/protontypes_open_sustainable_technolo...).

Proposed pipeline model: Open Models and Data -> Open Tools -> Open Execution and Server -> Open Results -> Open Discussion -> Open Science and Facts

Maybe I missed it, but none of what you said actually supports this claim:

> For technology to be truly sustainable, it must be globally available and independent.

This is the central statement of our organization. Thank you for pointing it out. I have now made our organization as the originator of this statement clear.

Really? Walled gardens and monopolization of knowledge are good now?

From whom?

Imagine how much better the world would be if we harvested your orgnans and gave them to a dozen people who would die without them. Yes it might be bad for you personally, like the author who starves, but think of the bigger picture.

Now imagine a world where donors can voluntarily give one of two working kidneys to people who need them to survive, and you have a much closer analogy. Still not quite there, but at least not as unnecessarily alarmist.

Where's the world where open source devs get paid?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com