Feel free to point to anyone doing these deep dives that specifically tackle the lost knowledge of the early decades of computer science and the ideas that have not yet come to fruition despite being extremely old
Most of this kind of content comes off as relevant/topical but mindless entertainment. This is not a "deep dive" of anything that I could practically apply in my daily work. It feels good to think this content might add value and then to subsequently consume it, but it's effectively junk food.
I used to spend a lot of time watching crap like lex and primagen before it became obvious that these kinds of information channels are not meaningfully enriching despite sounding like they should be to a casual observer.
> Open source is the very worst thing currently going on because it is so incredibly exploitative, it's far more exploitative than any actual company is of the workers who work at the company.
> Even the people who are getting paid in open source are getting massively underpaid to do it compared to how much the people who are using their code are making, it's nothing compared to the power that is accreted by the people who have co-opted that work thanks to the open source model. And then mark zuckerberg gets to define how the internet works despite having paid for almost none of the software that his company actually needed to make that work.
> It's like feudalism or serfdom, these people did the work and got nothing for it. It's like you took the worst aspects of capitalism for workers and the worst aspects of socialism for workers and put them together, that's open source. You get no power and you get no money.
> It's exploitative whether the people chose to be exploited, just because someone chooses to let you exploit them does not mean that you didn't exploit them. And for the record that's how most exploitation works; convincing people to do something that turns out to be very bad for them and very good for you, and that's exactly what the open source movement has turned out to be.
> I really don't see the "we post stuff on github under a gpl2 or lgpl or apache or mit license", all that is to me now is just exploitation. You can say that there's solutions but until someone demonstrates that those solutions work, it's the standard "real communism has never been tried" argument. AGPL is the only thing that I've seen so far that's an attempt to fix these fundamentally unfair compensation practices.
1. Not paying for the labor corporations exploit. GPL is better here, but still imperfect. MIT/BSD is awful here. It wouldn't matter in an ideal post-scarcity society, but we don't live in that yet, so it does matter. Until post-scarcity, a better model would route revenue from exploitative capitalist uses back to the creators and/or their desired sinks.
2. The open source bait-and-switch - startups using open source to get users and then pulling up the ladder and going closed source and monopolistic once they have achieved scale to enforce/ achieve lock in.
In fact they don't seem to care about money at all, often believing all corporations/capitalism are bad, and that they and everyone else should just be poor and live in the woods or something.
I feel like if you plotted open-source vs proprietary code percentages against the rate of innovation, it would be a bell curve: once you start giving away too much, the incentive to innovate diminishes.
When has History of any kind ever held practical value?
Casey is far more measured, careful and accurate. Casey feels like an engineering educator first, who happens to make YouTube videos. I don’t always agree with Casey’s technical opinions, but he seems like a thoughtful guy who thinks things through.
I should also add that even interviews are valuable. Coders at Work is fantastic at that and drawing out technical opinions and reasoning; notably the subjects interviewed don't all agree and have sometimes drastically different work styles and preferences. (And also adding from another comment, Turing Award Lectures are great history, and Uncle Bob even has a history book out now on influential programmers.)
I skimmed through the video because I don't have two hours but there's no lost knowledge in it, he's going over well known papers from Dijkstra, Hoare or Knuth. The paper he bases most of the talk around Knuth's Structured Programming with go to Statements is his most often cited work, there's a very high chance you'll encounter that early in any undergrad course. So the answer to your question is, pretty much at any local uni with a CS course.
But I'm curious who you think #3 is.