CaptArmchair

I'm going to leave this in-depth report here by Nadia Eghbal about funding in Open Source: "Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure", commissioned by the Ford Foundation. [1]

Her conclusions go beyond "it's a money issue". They touch on the nature of open source as a public good and the skewed relationship between those who use open source and those who maintain it.

To my mind, there's a third component, and that's the notion that open source developers themselves are willing to risk poverty to achieve their own particular vision. In a way, that makes them not all to different from other artists who have struggled historically with the same type of tension.

What makes all the difference is how code - or art - is valued by those who use it. That is: real or perceived value. While Babel has become a bedrock of frontend development, I can't help but wonder if it would have held a similar spot if it was sold under a closed source license. And if a closed source solution would have sparked someone to build an open source alternative in their free time.

[1] https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/learning/research-report...

Each of us has two lives. The second one begins once you truly realize life is finite.

I'm going to link this fragment of a documentary on the Belgian artist Sam Dillemans called "Madness in the detail". He talks about his work and his struggle to get to that elusive point where he finally reaches his artistic vision, as well as his impressions on how the rest of the world approaches art:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsZ5pmZfIc0

Clearly, everything else is subservient to art as far as Sam Dillemans is concerned. That's who he is. That's the mind space in which he operates. It's his innate personality.

Do you have to be like Sam Dillemans? Do you want to be like Sam Dillemans? Sure, there are aspects of him that everyone recognizes within themselves. It's up to you, though, to figure out what you want to take from that and how far you want to take that for yourself. Everyone is living their own unique, personal experience of life. There's only one Sam Dillemans living the life of Sam Dillemans. Trying to become Sam Dillemans is futile.

Trying to become yourself, well, that's what it's all about, isn't it?

I didn't know parenting was suffused by politics, but apparently here we are.

For the exact same reason why we teach little kids to throw their litter in the garbage bin instead of the ground, and hope that it will stick into adulthood: a range of values and ideas that display a due sense of caring and compassion.

The problematic part is that Mr Beast offers little if any critical reflection about the systems that create wealth inequality, pollution, etc. and even less regarding his own role as a perceived philanthropist within that context.

It's not that it's inherently morally wrong to clean up the ocean, open a free bank or handing someone 500k for staying 100 days in a 100ft circle. It's the manifest obliviousness of not challenging the system and the premises that allow him to make his videos that's - industries generating single-use plastics, people not able to take out a mortgage,... - which is the issue.

His videos aren't in any way a social commentary. They are nothing more then entertainment, and they don't pretend to be anything else. That's what makes all of this morally questionable.

I disagree with your premise. As a generalist, I have held some pretty interesting jobs over the past almost 20 years. What you know isn't what matters. How you decide to leverage your knowledge is where you make a difference.

As a generalist, I found the ability to zoom out to the bigger picture and connect dots to be invaluable. More then anything else, learning to communicate is paramount.

That doesn't detract from what a specialist with deep technical expertise does. I know some who are great communicators as well. It's just that discussions happen on a different plane.

Roald Dahl wrote in "Uncle Oswald"

> “I began to realize how important it was to be an enthusiast in life. He taught me that if you are interested in something, no matter what it is, go at it at full speed ahead. Embrace it with both arms, hug it, love it and above all become passionate about it. Lukewarm is no good. Hot is no good either. White hot and passionate is the only thing to be.”

And I think that's exactly what you and Bukowski are saying here.

Of course, the "don't try" line is an aphorism. Often enough, you won't know whether or not you'll like something until you've tried it. And sometimes, it might take a few tries and some warming up. That's only human. Often enough, though you already know deep down your gut "this isn't for me" while your mind hasn't caught up yet. Bukowski's poem might just be the bucket of icewater that some aspiring writers, stuck in a grueling grind over their keyboards, really need.

I live in a country where this is fully legal for many years now. Access is non-trivial and there's a formal procedure with checks and balances. You don't need to be terminally ill, but you do need 3 doctors to agree that you are in a state where you're suffering can't readily be solved. There are also waiting periods as well as a psychological screening. Afterwards, each case is also reviewed by a national board.

Most importantly: even to the very last second, the patient's decision matters and is final. And procedure requires to iterate reminding patient's agency over and over again.

Having that moral debate out of the way, far more interesting is that euthanasia only ever has a place in a functioning healthcare system and social security system that puts the person's interests in the center. That is, by the time an elderly person do becomes eligible, it's never because they are a "burden" to their families or society.

In fact, it's extended to psychiatric patients as well. People with severe clinical mental illness can be eligible. Paradoxically, it's been observed that a sizable chunk of patients do have the paperwork, but actually don't go through with it. Just the mere thought that it's a non-controversial, accepted option which negates taking matters in your own hands is enough for them to keep going. Again, it's not a "get out of jail free" card. You do need to go through a lengthy procedure with many evaluations, and only after all other options are exhausted, before you become eligible.

Well, they've already rounded that corner a while ago with TRAPPIST:

> TRAPPIST (TRAnsiting Planets and PlanetesImals Small Telescope) is a project led by the Origins in Cosmology and Astrophysics group (OrCA) of the Department of Astrophysics, Geophysics and Oceanography (AGO) of the STAR Institute of the University of Liège (Belgium).

https://www.trappist.uliege.be/cms/c_5006023/en/trappist

Support any activist initiative that doesn't try to stimulate societal change through destroying public property.

The Louvre is a public institution and the art preserved and on display in such institutions is a public good. It's nonsensical to glue oneself to / destroy a public good - especially one that has cultural value (and other types of value) - when trying to make a point about the impact unchecked private property has on the world.

If people aren't sympathetic to such protests, it's because cultural heritage helps shape a community's shared sense of identity. Gluing yourself to art is akin to compromising the integrity of that shared identity. If anything, that's the exact last thing you want to do if you hope to rally people around your cause.

Sure, maybe you're trying to signal the urgency to push a public action regarding climate change. But there are other, more poignant ways to do that.

Mining the moon in and of itself? There's no impact on Earth. Introducing tons of extraterrestrial metals into our biosphere? There's the rub.

The article totally disregards the lifecycle of consumer products that would use lunar metals. There's already a massive challenge dealing with historic heavy metal pollution across the globe.

Recycling is a hard problem. Not because of the technical aspects. Because a massive chunk of what we consume never ends up being recycled in a safe, secure environmental conscious manner in the first place. Just consider how much e-waste ends up in 3rd world scrapyards. There are massive economical and political hurdles to consider. Our collective behaviors need to fundamentally shift...

... and once you start thinking about that, you automatically arrive at the 5 R's which have a distinct ordering: Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Rot, Recycle.

If we could figure out how to reduce global consumption of resources in the first place in order to stem the rate at which our planet gets polluted... then what's left of the need to scavenge metals from other heavenly bodies?

Cooking classes, book club, movie club, volunteering (e.g. environment, local heritage, animal shelter, first aid,...), amateur acting, art classes, group travel, hanging out at vintage records store, coffee bar, dancing classes, music festivals, sports,...

Bolden was sharing his perspective on available technologies here. He wasn't discussing the economics of human deep space-flight and how those tie in with with NASA's mission as a public entity.

Sure, I'm astounded by SpaceX's technical prowess and aptitude to reduce the price of human spaceflight by magnitudes. There's no denying that.

I'm skeptical about their business model and the potential risks and second-order effects involved in handing a single party the keys of a multi-billion dollar, nation-state sized program to establish a human / U.S. presence on the moon / space. Because that's essentially what many proponents of commercial space flight are implying by directly pointing to Starship as the alternatives that (seemingly already) outclasses SLS.

I'd argue that progress for progress' sake is a meaningless goal. Especially when "advance the state of the art" or "industrial grade components" aren't argued as concrete tangible value.

When it comes the latter part, defining that value is the essence of the debate. No matter how advanced the technology is, it's just a tool that serves a purpose. Once a business establishes a market dominance, what incentives remain to keep advancing that tech? What guarantees could anyone offer that SpaceX will stay on the "cutting edge" once that point is reached? And how will that impact NASA's ability to make operational choices regarding it's launch capabilities and it's larger mission to foster human exploration of space starting on Earth itself?

Finally, we're not discussing CRS-7 or Falcon 9. This is about SLS and it's Starship counterpart and which developed within their shared, particular timeline.

This is the extreme take that's echoed across online fora by proponents of commercial enterprises such as SpaceX.

There's an big argument to be made for the efficient investment of "taxpayer money".

Then again, the SLS program does fund the private space industry. While it's easy to dismiss it as a mere "jobs program", it did / does provide a bed for the next generation of engineers to learn, gain knowledge, become experts and so on. It also provided a bed for contractors and subcontractors to grow their businesses. Just like the Apollo program did.

The big difference with the likes of SpaceX is that the latter aims to provide a completely integrated platform with all the components. At a fraction of the cost. In a way, SpaceX aims to mimic Apple's business model. It's already a commercial brand in it's own right rather then some white-label name.

While choosing the cheaper, efficient option would seemingly be preferable, a public government isn't a private customer. It's the 'res publica' that represents society and its manifold interests. So, that leaves us a poignant question: Would the cheap price and efficiency offered by a single private actor who does everything, really be worth trading in supporting a diverse, competitive, advanced space industry as part of a public mission?

After all, when taxpayers point fingers to the Senate, let's not forget that this institution exists in a democratic model which the people of the United States have chosen as part of their own representation over the past 250 odd years. Pork and barrel politics are - ultimately - part and parcel of a well-functioning consensus model that doesn't let one dominant voice determine whose interests should be favored at the expense of all others.

Finally, in the grand scheme of things, NASA's budget in FY2020 represented 0.48% of all federal expenses. As far as the taxpayer is concerned, the cost of SLS over a decade pertains to a negligible fraction of their contributions through taxation on an individual level.

> I think, especially in cities, you just have the problem of bicycles not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. They are too slow for the street and waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side

Replace that bicycles with cars and the argument still holds up. "historically" here is really an argumentum ad antiquitatem. Both cars and bicycles are fairly modern inventions which both appeared around the same time.

In fact, city streets were mostly dominated by pedestrians, horses and carriages up to the late 19th / early 20th century. Moreover, there was a backlash against early cars as well. The more interesting question is this: how did cars really ended up overtaking streets in cities and towns? Why did infrastructure / urban planning ended up favoring car use in the public space?

> I have seen some very ambitious plans to make city Centers free of anything that can go faster than 25kph and I root for such plans but they are all very naive usually

Why are they naive? I live in a historic city center. Streets used to be cramped with cars, it smelled horribly with exhaust gasses, soot covered historic buildings, parking space is extremely limited and small sidewalks were crowded forcing you to teeter into traffic.

Over the past decades, that all changed as car use was gradually disincentivized and in some areas downright banned. All I can say is that it has been a massive improvement. The city is far more appealing then it used to be... and these days I know few people contesting that it's "unfeasible" or "unpractical".

Would it work everywhere? No, not really. Let's be realistic. But let's not venture into the other extreme dismissing wholesale as a naive idea either.

No. It's a reflection of how financial markets value regional economies that use / back those currencies.

Over the past 15 years, Europe experienced:

* The Great Recession. * A Sovereign Debt Crisis which lasted well into 2014. * Increasing competition from new economies in Asia, mainly China. * Brexit. * The Pandemic. * And now an unprecedented energy crisis.

Also, the EU had expanded swiftly in the '00s allowing many of the former Eastern Bloc countries to join the union. Arguably, one does not simply integrate national economies in a single market zone under a single currency. It takes years to align towards common policies, while dealing with the many challenges posed by cultural and political differences.

Let's not forget that the initial raison d'etre of the EU - such as it was conceived by Schumann and Churchill - was to ensure sustained stability and peace across the continent in the wake of World War II. In a way, the EU has been instrumental in protecting the continent from worse consequences given the turbulent waters the bloc has navigated over the past 15 years. But it hasn't come out of all of that unscathed.

In order for the EU to recover, it needs to invest in infrastructure and people. A massive challenge which is encumbered by the significant debts most European nations have been shouldering thus far.

You, on the other hand, using American technology to connect with the world and assert that "software is eating it", well, that's - historically - just one expression of American hegemonic power after World War II. In regard to the EU that's expressed military - through NATO - and economically through countless trade agreements which have led to tight integration (see: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...). Proliferation of US technology across the continent is just one expression of that relationship between the EU bloc and the US.

I think these articles are doing alternatives to car use - be it CE or electric - a disservice. Why? Because they seem to confound cause and effect.

This isn't about "geography" or "wealth". It's about infrastructure, urban planning and lifestyle. In the western world, the architecture of cities and regions has been redesigned during the 20th century to accommodate car use as the primary mode of transport. And it happen as a complex interplay between business interests, market demand and public governance, creating intricate feedback loops.

At the start of the 20th century, when the automobile was still in it's infancy, car use was looked down upon and there was even an anti-car sentiment.

e.g. https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

It's worth paying attention to history and wonder how cars became so dominant a transportation mode in the first place.

In that regard, this statement:

> So, the biggest barrier is likely to remain the social will to rethink transportation.

Should have been the premise of the article. Not its conclusion.

Agreed. While that translates into 30k pounds today, one has to also factor in the cost of living in Bengal at the time.

While she rented in a poor area, would 17 pounds have been on the high end or low end for the kind of living quarters it got her? What were the price levels in general for food, clothes and so on? You'd have to look at rent levels in that area at the time to make an accurate assertion.

> Even with all this misfortune, all of them seem to have done well later.

They clearly did. One unanswered question is what the intentions were behind her petition to take her children on the Bengal Military Orphan Society. Was there a real hard pressure to take such a drastic measure? Or was this a desperate plea in hopes of drawing attention and financial help from elsewhere e.g. erstwhile social circles she frequented?

Ultimately, the article does mention that the petition was denied, yet doesn't answer how she made ends meet in the following three years before the family moved again.

I think we have to consider prior background here, and look at her income.

She was a widow of one William Christie Laing, a surgeon. Her late husband had subscribed to the Bengal Military Orphan Society for 23 years. So, presumably, he was part of the military, and as a surgeon, held a rank that would have yielded a sizable stipend.

According to the article, she received a £225 widow pension from the Bengal Military Fund. So, is this a sizable pension, or mere charity pushing her into "extreme penury" per her own assertion? One could assume that rank and years served by her late husband would have propped up her pension beyond what a widow of a common soldier would have received. Or even a common laborer who didn't came from wealth at all.

In that regard, rent wasn't her particular issue. Relinquishing her former lifestyle in order to maintain her 7 children was. Sure, the reduction of her income had a serious impact. But how does it compare to actual poverty levels at the time?

Just 3 years later, she had moved out to a different place and was living with 4 of her children. So, clearly, her financial situation did improve during that period of time. A dynamic that generally wasn't - and still isn't - all that self evident for someone who already belonged to the lower social classes.

Neither mechanical engineering or the scientific method could ever emerge in isolation, regardless of what happened elsewhere in the world.

The scientific method itself, such as it was developed during the 18th century, is a poster child example as thinkers at the time hit the so-called Problem of induction. The great enlightened tinker David Hume provided foundational insights through his work "An Enquiry concerning human understanding" and "A Treatise of Human Nature".

Scholars have argued that David Hume has been influenced by oriental ideas when he developed his thinking regarding observations, causality, induction and self. Ideas which were paramount when it comes to defining a formal theory regarding the "scientific method" such as we understand it today.

I'm not sure what you're implying here.

First, are you equating "tech tree development" with pure engineering? Because that sounds like a reductionist view on history given that human advancement in thinking stretches far beyond technical / practical innovations. And that surely arbitrarly didn't stop between 500-1500AD just because the Roman Empire dissolved either.

Second, taking a eurocentristic perspective is a fallacy when it comes to history. Other parts of the world saw plenty of advances in mathematics, astronomy, navigation, trading, finance, public administration, medicine, literacy and so on. Just consider the many advances in the Islamic world or the Mongol empire. Ghengis Khan wasn't just a warlord, he was also a surprisingly progressive statesman introducing notions such as "freedom of religion" throughout his empire. The Silk Road wasn't just the odd caravan passing through the desert. It was as an intricate trading network connecting cultures and continents. Arguably, many of the ideas that was spawn the age of Enlightenment in Europe can be traced back as imported from outside.

Third, The so-called "Dark Ages" are a contested concept in modern historiography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) It's, at best, a form of value attribution. And modern historians are quite reluctant to label the period between 500-1800 as "stagnant". On the contrary.

Fourth, neither religious zealotry nor progressive thinking are absolutes. Sure, the world wasn't an utopia in the past. History is rife with examples of barbarism and persecution. But let's not pretend that the Industrial Revolution somehow did away with all that. In fact, while the world entered the so-called Information Age over the past 40 years, it also saw subsequent wars spurred by religion in the Middle East, Balkans, Africa and South-East Asia.

> Why should I...?

There's no obligation to believe or not believe a source. There are the facts and then there's the interpretation of the facts, the latter is what constitutes history.

The crux is that the interpretation doesn't happen in a void. It's always driven by context in which a record first originated. Historiography isn't just about creating new narratives, it's also re-interpreting existing narratives within their context. Which interpretations of the past exist? Why did a particular narrative become dominant? What motivates historical actors to promote one narrative over another? To what extent are establish facts corroborating with an generally accepted narrative?

For instance, Caesar's De Bello Galico isn't an objective, factual account of his famous campaign to pacify Gaul. It's a textbook example of a narrative of the facts that served different purposes. Here we have a roman warlord who wants to capture the story for posterity, but also leverage his report as a propaganda and finally as an apology geared towards the senate and his enemies.

That doesn't mean we should dismiss De Bello Galico is a worthless account. Its value isn't in gaining a facts based perspective of the different cultures that populated Gaul some 2.000 years ago. Instead, it's an unique insight in the mind of a roman general and what motivates him to write a particular narrative.

Then there are the biases and opinions of the contemporary historian interpreting De Bello Galico today. That's where it gets interesting. The art / science of history is akin to watching the past through the back mirror in your car: perspectives and interpretations change as more time and distance passes by, as well as the mirror itself warping the image over time.

Ultimately, we are all slaves of the arrow of time. The idea that we can somehow capture the past in excruciating detail is almost predicated on the fact that you have to pretty much build a static, frozen version of the Universe at a particular moment in time. That's - of course - science fiction. So, when looking at the past, one has to always give countenance to the fact that you'd do so through the imperfect proxy of historical records, the fallible memory of eye witnesses and a sampling of artifacts. There's just no escaping that reality.

In a way, it could be interpreted like that.

It's another way of saying "maintaining infrastructure isn't a task of a public service." Generally, the "why/why not" tends to be answered with: "A public services can never provide a similar value proposition compared to private vendors." which isn't really an answer to the question.

One problematic aspect is that public entities don't just rely on infrastructure, but also on an entire stack of in-house expertise that provides support and understands the specifics that come with the problem domain - e.g. legal compliance, accountability,... - of providing public services online.

So, barring an alternative, this would effectively mean that public services would have to source consultancy themselves on the private market to set up / maintain their applications on a private cloud on a per-project basis. Both of which are easily a factor more expensive compared to a shared platform / framework / solution where resources and expertise can be pooled together to provide affordable and secure services towards other branches of the authorities.

Oddly enough, they seem to be all to aware of that conundrum:

> In parallel, we are starting a piece of joint work with the Central Digital & Data Office, in partnership with Chief Technology Officers (CTOs) across government, to understand what a future central hosting offer could or should be. We don’t know what we’ll conclude, the options ranging from doing nothing, to creating a reusable set of configuration and management components (similar to the GOV.UK Design System, but for secure cloud hosting) all the way through to building a new PaaS v2 using different architecture.

Personally, I believe this is a decision based on cost. The cost of keeping centralized hosting infrastructure based on old technology online, or migrating towards new technology, is just too steep and can't be readily justified anymore in 2022 compared to what the private market offers. Perhaps most surprisingly: there's no clear short-term plan B for all those entities relying on this service.

If I were managing a few projects from some department, I wouldn't be happy learning that I'd now have 18 months to scramble, figure out how to move forward, find funds, write a project proposal, align all stakeholders, source consultancy, etc. without going offline for a prolonged time.

I live in historic city center with the exact same issue.

This is about creating a livable city, and this implies balancing commercial interests with the interests of the larger local community. Tourism isn't unethical or bad, but it does become an issue as far as the locals are concerned when unchecked growth and a focus to maximize tourist spending pushes everything else out. That's when a city stops being a city and effectively turns into a theme park.

When it comes to local politics, it's clear to everyone that tourism is a cornerstone of our local economy. But at the same time, having millions visiting one's city does come at a cost regarding pollution, noise, mobility, safety, prices of goods and services, upkeep of public infrastructure, etc. Tourism is an industry and it needs to be treated as such in terms of policies and regulations.

Externalizing all of those costs to the local population simply won't do. Taxing tourists is just one tactic to do just that. Other strategies include toning down city marketing, adapting fiscal / grant policies for commerce and hospitality, a permit stop for hotels / airbn'b / B&B's, banning cruise ships from ports, limiting admissions to public venues (museums,...), regulating guided tours, regulating bars / restaurants (closing hours, terraces, signage,...)

At the same time, it's the responsibility of a city council to also enact policies / investments in alternate industries to ensure a healthy mix which makes it attractive enough for a diverse population to stay and live there e.g. invest in research, tech, higher education, local economies, etc.

"Discoverability online" is a perennial question. And it's a rabbit hole as well since there's more then one way of exploring, discovering and consuming information with the question of "relevancy" being entirely context-driven.

Back in the 90s and 00s, the Web/Internet was promoted as a break from traditional mainstream media e.g. flipping between a fixed set of television networks that curated the content you'd get to see that night. It was hailed as this new way of sharing information compared to "40 channels and nothing's on tonight".

"What is the Web supposed to be?" has always been a question. Push or pull? The age of curated feeds and algorithms hasn't answered that question definitively. On the contrary.

> how do they find new viewers that want to watch their content without resorting to traditional advertising, or hoping word-of-mouth (online forums, IRL, or otherwise) works?

The Web/Internet is a game changer when it comes to providing access to services and information anytime any place. But, I don't believe that the Web / Internet was ever going to definitively solve an essentially a challenge of interaction between humans: "How do I get noticed?"

Consider a traditional library. As far as authors are concerned, putting books together and providing catalogues or curated suggestions to patrons doesn't imply that every single one of them will ever see the same reach or get the same readership. Not unless their work gets actively promoted.

Putting your work online - whether self-hosted or via a platform - only moves that challenge from the analogue to a virtual space.

Your mentioning RSS readers is interesting because subscribing to RSS feeds implies that you went through a phase or process of discovery first. Maybe someone recommended someone else's blog. Maybe you stumbled upon a blog via a blogroll. Maybe it's a blog of a friend who gave you their domain at a social occasion. There's just more then one way for a feed to arrive in your RSS reader.

To my mind, some of the criticisms about the quality of content on platforms, or what platforms recommend in their feeds, today draw parallels to criticisms given regarding last century's TV networks. To an extent, I think it's because the recommendation feeds of these platforms work just the same way: as constant feed that's passively consumed, having consumers flicking through whatever is presented until something engaging passes along.

But that's where you have to balance the gain updating the old toolchain against the benefits in your specific situation. Are you going to spend a lot of time on the project, or is it just a few bug fixes? Can you revive the old toolchain? Is the old toolchain churning out good enough production ready assets?

Upgrading dependencies can be a trap. Like, in the past, I've delegated a bugfix that shouldn't take more then an hour or two to a co-worker, only to see them waste an entire day in dependency / NPM hell.

To my mind, there needs to be a compelling case or argument that justifies sinking time in an upgrading exercise.

That's conflating a licensing choice with a business goal. Slapping an open source license on code isn't a business model. Licensing choices do inform what kind of business model the author of the code is going to follow.

The main difference between open / closed source is that the IP is or isn't sold for a licensing fee itself. If the latter is true, you need an alternate business model. One alternative is selling something tangential to your project: typically expertise in installing, operating, maintaining the code. Consultancy. Another alternative is leveraging open source software to sell a service: hosting, CRM, managed services, social media, etc. etc.

All of a sudden, open source becomes very profitable.