Be an Open Source Absolutist
twitter.com
twitter.com
He's not saying everything should be open source.
He's saying that the right to have an open source version of anything is what we should be absolutists about.
So not that every OS, or encryption, or AI model should be open - but that people should fight and stand up for the right to have access to open OSes, encryption, or AI models if produced.
Windows can exist, but shouldn't be able to prevent Linux from existing basically.
That's the absolutism. He hasn't suddenly turned into Stallman.
That does not say that open source is great because it copies closed source.
Nor does the term "absolutism."
Carmack is pushing for open source, just like the title would imply.
He'd have to move to a Mastodon instance for that not to look stupid.
It was stupid, and I was ashamed of the regulatory state, but we got better.
we have not gotten any better. our t-shirt snark has, regrettably, faded.
It wasn't the sort of anti-linux sentiment that you're implying.
VS is hands down the best IDE in the world, bar none. And I say this as someone who runs linux on everything except my gaming pc and my work laptop.
Once you step outside of visual studio though ... nothing compares with those setups (I use vim, but the sentiment is the same). It's because you have easy access to the entire OS, not anything specific to vim/emacs (although there's a lot of great things to say about them too).
I use it for .NET development but I don't think it is better than Rider.
I definitely think it's better.
Often rider lags behind understanding newer C# languages and .net features and the debugger is slower to launch in rider (rider in general is slower than VS in my experience). I also find rider slower in general and I think features rider has are mis-features.
If you're coming from a java background with IntelliJ experience then rider will probably feel more comfortable in terms of UI philosophies, keybindings, etc, and I'm not trying to discount comfort, but even technically I don't think rider can touch VS.
And I'm not discounting rider, I'm saying VS really is that good. It's not perfect by any means, but even on technical merit alone I think rider loses.
And I have a jetbrains "all inclusive" license, I'm a huge fan of their tools. I just don't think rider is as good as VS. If VS were ever ported to linux I'd stop using Rider alltogether.
Although I will admit, I can't like DataGrip and I've really tried. Just something about it doesn't sit well with my sensibilities, I think because it tries to be jack of all things data wise and it loses something as a result.
At least Demonware will get direct unlicensed access to their netcode when Microsoft finally buys them.
Would it be ironic if he typed it on an iPhone? Or transmitted it over a public spectrum licensed exclusively to some carrier? Or washed his hands with soap purchased from a store?
It’s ok to use non-FLOSS things. But it’s bad to ban FLOSS or be confused over whether something is or is not FLOSS.
This is an odd twist at the end. What’s it referencing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein#Bernstein_...
I.e. saying that source code is protected speech.
To create such a mechanism there needs to be an open source union that doesn't just help people with x y or z license.
Just like how the unions fought for workers rights, this OSS union would fight for digital and coder's rights.
I have a unpleasant feeling that this well intended talk is only a move to protect his future work and foremost business.
(but I do hope that I am wrong)
His point is allow open source not only use open source.
"Be a Free Speech Absolutist".
> Open Source AI is in many people’s crosshairs today. They believe that giving free access to state of the art algorithms and models without any guardrails constitutes a danger to society, that the public can’t be entrusted...
> In the spirit of the first amendment, congress should make no law abridging the freedom to release open source software.
I.e. Stop AI from becoming the modern version of prohibited encryption. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
All software becomes open source after its patents/copyrights expire.
It loads (fast). There's no obnoxious modals or even ads. The whole article's available in plain text. It gives a view/like count. Commenting is frictionless and via a well-established method, and authors often follow up answering questions.
It's my preferred way of reading text on the web. Maybe 2nd to old school personal websites (since they're less likely to get deleted - I don't quite trust twitter to not do that).
Most forums are faster (head-fi, mobileread). And twitter is chokeful of ads and spammy replies.
It's painfully slow. Probably depends on your connection and device, but I install libredirect on my phone purely to avoid twitter load times.
Anyway, maybe I'm getting this wrong but I don't think he's saying that everything has to be 100% open source. He's talking about the tools we need to build everything, that backbone of the software.
>Closed source Elon open sourced the algorithm.
Similarly, you'd presumably just be paying for access to that Twitter personal data mapping.
What about open source learning martial arts and excercising a lot?
The fear of someone else's potential to harm is meaningless without some idea what you propose to do about it, and having that idea be at at all remotely tolerable or even sane.
It doesn't matter how scared you are of the possibility of a drone or anything else, since you can be afraid of litetally infinite possible things. What matters is, is there anything that you have any reasonable right to do about it? Can you prevent open source drones that could somehow be used to harm you, without causing a million times more harm to everyone else just to make you feel safer?
Open source kamikaze drones, ok sure, what, precicely, about them? Finish your thought. I await amazement.
What is an open source kamikaze drone composed of, and which of those parts do you think can be controlled, and how?
I have some disturbing news for you, every rando in the world already has free access to all the materials, tools, and info needed to make all those scary sounding weapons. Anyone can already bomb buildings or even shoot planes out of the sky. The extra exotic controlled materials that governments have access to don't actually matter. They just give them slight tactical advantages in wars. If someone wants to bomb a bridge, or a whole city, they don't need a nuclear bomb. If they want to destroy a tank or shoot a person, they don't need a fancy depleted uranium bullet. Ordinary materials are already quite good enough to build quit good enough canons and missiles etc, and the knowledge is just ordinary engineering. You can't build a bicycle without knowing enough engineering to be able to design a functional gun from scratch. I could design, fabricate, and fire an 'RPG' right now, and so could you.
An "open source kamikaze drone" is like that. It's made up entirely out of ordinary generic knowledge and materials. Their potential has existed ever since the first electric motor and radio. It doesn't even require any software or even any ICs.
If that alarms you, well it must be terrible to require assurance that no one else has the power to harm you, yet live in a universe that you aren't the god of.
Let's rewind and pretend I agreed.
"Right! That is crazy! We should... wait, what should we do?"
It doesn't matter how terrible something is if there is nothing to be done about it. What is the point in saying that it's literally the end of the world if a nova goes off 30 light years away? It would be, and it could happen any time. We should... what?
The terrible thing you expressed is not actually a thing that can be isolated and managed, because there is no such atomic distinct unit as a kamikaze drone. The thing that you have pointed out that is so dangerous is any human in the world having any free will at all.
There is no motte and fucking baily
In fact I even DID respond to your moronic RPG/nuke hyperbole even though it was disingenuous and an attempt to deflect.
> In fact I even DID respond to your moronic RPG/nuke hyperbole
You need to calm down.
Carmack posits you should be an "absolutist." Always and anything open source, 100%. I pointed out an obvious contradiction, with parallels to the same ridiculous argument "2A" advocates put forth. There are clear red lines that almost the entire population agrees shouldn't be crossed. They fly in the face of "absolutist" and maximalist hyperbole about having things to 100%. Any weapon for anyone. Open source can be used for the same extremely dangerous weapons that almost everyone agrees isn't something a society wants proliferated.
The Bailey is open source absolutism, and when challenged with a case that shows this absolutism maybe isn't so great, the Motte is "all i'm saying is open source is good ok, why are you mentioning dangerous weapons"
A statement like this tweet is obviously a sound bite and a conversation sparker. And yet, go ahead and say how it's not reasonable. Go ahead and unpack how it's not actually literally possible or would be worse for everyone in the long run.
I at least am not even trying to suggest this Stallman level of purity for real, but, I also defy anyone to prove that it's actually an invalid idea that is the tiniest bit bad for humanity or even business. The way I see it, I forgive 99% of people for being too weak to figure out and stick to what's right, and I forgive that at least 50% because I have to count myself in that group, so, it's really only self-serving graciousness, yet more human weakness (as is calling it human weakness rather than my weakness), but at least I acknowledge that it's a failing, not a virtue. Stallman, and anyone else suggesting this absolutist ideal in this area, are actually right. We're all just too shitty and basic to eat broccoli once in a while and must have burgers and coke, Every. Single. Time. because fuck the tiniest bit of inconvenience today for 100x better tomorrow.