Observe, orient, decide, and then act to design, create, mutate, and operate elegant systems for perceiving, understanding, and effectively solving problems.
Listen, learn, and then: educate.
Encourage convergence.
Test to be sure.
There are no unquestionable answers.
There are no unanswerable questions.
Yeah, people - in general - tend to do this with anything novel, sadly - especially novel design. See what Steve Balmer said about the iPhone for a commercial example. For Engineering examples, well, see the controversy around anything by Poettering (Systemd, PulseAudio, etc., etc.).
Are you certain that you're not playing with words to arrive at a predetermined conclusion? What is this "I" to which you're referring and how can you demonstrate that "I" does not or cannot exist within systems such as these? Further, if you are to find something which qualifies as an "I" elsewhere, what makes that elsewhere fundamentally different and therefore capable of supporting and being an "I" and is that elsewhere such simply by definition or in and of itself? Further, if the language usage is indistinguishable from the language usage of an "I", is the difference of source meaningful? If so, why?
Pratchett really got technology, imo. Sometimes it really is high energy magic, but most of the time it's just labourers you can't see being exploited. I especially enjoyed the line "money dangled is far more effective than money given" or something like that... it's true.
Yes. The (A)GPL is there for a good reason (in part, this one - ensuring one's work and other's work on it remains free and open source and commercial freeloaders can't get a free ride), and trademark law ensures you retain control of your software's brand. MIT and BSD... well, look where they come from - they're not designed with those purposes in mind. If you care about an aspect of a licensing solution, use a license designed and fit for purpose - just as you'd use a library designed and fit for purpose.
(it's not a basket case because it's nationalised, it's nationalised because it's a basket case - thank the automotive industry - and it's a national security asset)
Insufficient and negligent quality control systems design permits a single point of failure in manufacturing process specifically designed and funded to prevent such things - calling into question the trustworthiness of the manufacturing process compliance for the entire product line.
IIRC In git, the earliest possible commit date/timestamp is the Unix epoch. Interestingly enough, for this application (the .gitignore file) I'd imagine the offset from the epoch is set to zero. This would result in the commit timestamp you're seeing.
What's wrong with that? They are. We can always make the finer distinction of "Von Neumann architecture inspired digital electronic computer" if you wish to exclude the examples you've given. After all, anything which transforms a particular input to a particular output in a consistent fashion could be considered a computer which implements a particular function. I would say - don't confuse the word's meaning with the object's function and simply choose a context in which a word refers to a particular meaning, adapt to others contexts and translate, and simply deal with the fact that there is no firm division between computer and not-computer out in the word somewhere apart from people and their context-rich communications. If the context in which you're operating with an interlocutor is clear enough for you to jump to a correction of usage ... simply don't; beyond verifying your translation is correct, of course. As you're already doing this - likely without realising it - by taking care in doing so consciously you're likely to find your communications more efficient, congenial, and illuminating than they otherwise would be.
If I recall correctly, it was the resulting cash flow that needed to be laundered, and the potential of those operations to eventually result in the funding of terrorism, that was the alleged concern.
If people phrased it as what it was "doing psychoactive drugs with co-workers/competitors in a non-work setting" ... the activity would seem as dangerous as it always was. It's just that now people, rightfully, have higher expectations of each other's behaviour because work forces otherwise incompatible people together due to economic pressures and those relationships must remain collegial. Those pressures have always been there, but as time has gone on - and especially since the 1970s with the rise telecommunications and database technologies - that social pressure has only increased due to the growth of more tightly knit but wider scoped social networks (among essentially all employers in a field, esp.). This has grown to global social networks and databases essentially creating a permanent reputation in all aspects of life. Job mobility has likewise decreased. Given that psychoactive drugs alter a persons mind and cause a person to do things they most likely would never do when they were sober, and esp. at work - the changing culture seems a natural outcome of all of those pressures as a rational way to decrease the risk of disaster.
Is there any better embodiment of entrepreneurial capitalism than stealthily appropriating an entire planet, privatising it, and then naming it after one's self? ... I'd be hard pressed to think of one.
Huge respect for making that work in the first place! Would love to hear some kind of retrospective about what wa involved in that - I'm super curious.