pickingdinner

Then dual licensing is not possible?

It's a simple IF statement.

IF commercial then $cash, else $mit.

A dual license doesn't mean they can choose if they already are what they are, ie for profit.

You could say that about any license. Every license has stipulations, including those not for profit. Otherwise it would be public domain.

One could arguing enforcing open source is harder to afford specifically because you aren't making money off of it.

Conflict may have been too strong a word. In argument maybe? From what I understood, GNU was/is kind of a big deal, and OSI didn't have a monopoly on OS, or otherwise they would have on GNU also.

> if a project is licensed under an open source license, you can dual license it

Confirming this is all I am after.

I wasn't talking about carving anything up, though that sounds fun.

> According to the prevailing definitions, prohibiting commercial use is not Open Source.

Can you combine that with what you said earlier? I read it as a counter argument to dual licensing. Now you seem to be perfectly OK with it.

> Yes

Except GNU and OSI are in conflict?

> No

Then you can have an OS license with a business license or even an FU license (arbitrarily horrible license).

You're not prohibiting anyone from using it. Nothing is stopping a business from using it, especially if the price is fair.

So does OSI have complete authority over the definition of OS?

Does their definition restrict dual licenses?

Have they thought maybe creating more lucrative OS models/standards would help their cause?

It really isn't about enforcing it. How do you enforce that is the question that even GPL struggles with.

It's a simple value proposition and a simple premise. If you're commercial, we're commercial. If you're not making money, you can still have it.

Compare that to just someone buying something. Individuals and especially businesses will buy what they need to buy. Imagine someone insisting "you don't have to buy me, but I am hungry". That's not even a business model. I find it's the value proposition is what is broken with most OSS. It's virtue signalling plus relying on donations. NPR does that, except they spend hours on the air begging for money. OSS might work if they were given the airtime too, but usually all the time they have is a few sentences the "shopper" reads before they hit the (free) download button (or enter the git command or whatever).

Of what? the GPL?

Software can be MIT + commercial. That's still perfectly open source.

A few modern youtubers have great Spore videos. My 7yo wanted to play and I assumed it was going to be in the app store, just to find out it was a Windows game from 2012. An easy install through Steam though.

What happened to dual licenses?

Free for private and non-commercial use. $$ per seat for commercial use.

This can still be completely open source.

The author essentially goes on to abstract away each thing included in a circle. Take a car or a computer or even an essay. It does take knowing what makes the thing up, which is the exercise.

When done completely, unabstraction leaves you with nothing in the circle. Everything can be abstracted away.

In the case of "I" I make another circle around everything I moved outside the original circle and label is "own". It's what I am responsible for and what I will own up to. I own my mood, my health, the well being of my loved ones, my skills, etc. Then everything outside even that? Should not bother you at all.

But on a day to day basis, you can really only do one thing in any given moment. So remapping the "things" that make up "I" is handy, but most of the day most of it is completely irrelevant. That's an important realization also. If I'm writing this here, my "imperfections" should not be on my mind, and will not be.

I also talk to clients about being better than perfect, because perfect doesn't exist anyway. When doing fulfillment, errors do happen. Even amazon ships the wrong item from time to time. So perfection is impossible. But what if you owned up to your mistakes and engaged your customer and gave them more of what they wanted? They feel the attention, the appreciation, and a deeper connection with you and your service. That's better than perfect.

Fault tolerance doesn't have to just make up for a negative. It can go beyond and provide positives that you otherwise would not give.

A purely analytic objective statement about one thing the Bible kind of gets right: God loves you for who you are. Just think of how pragmatic that is. It prevents us from wasting our time murdering our village of weirdos, as per the article. Of course, historically, humans are known to murder the weirdos in our villages, so that's kind of ironic.

I would love to have a twitter bird. Only because it's the carcass of its older self. Really wish they update the logo soon.

To imagine this is even news. Most companies get rid of their stuff all the time in many different ways, mostly discretely and with absolutely no interest from the public, which result in the same thing. No news.

But Elon has learned the Trump card. Any news is attention, and the game isn't in good vs evil, moral vs immoral, tyrant vs iron man. It's being in the news, and making people debate exactly that.

And since hate travels broader and faster than praise, at least on social media, here we are.

Negativity First™

But it's all abstractions. The only issue is who gets to decide. The programmer controls the abstractions they're allowed to code, but everything predefined that they are forced to work with are "specs" that someone else abstracted for them. But even the programmers who worked on the specs are dealing with their own set of "specs" forced upon them by someone else. And these form the abstraction layers.

And if you're working on accounting software, then many of the abstractions you're working with are defined by accounting practices and the IRS. Your job becomes to translate them, and the logic, into software that can automate them, etc.

Whenever you're forced to deal with something, it's expensive. Whenever you're forced to do something, it's expensive, especially when considering the cost of getting it wrong.

The problem with artificial writing is writing alone doesn't accomplish much. Art is the expression itself, so AI art is the final product. But with writing, the goal is to often communicate something novel, in which case the AI wouldn't know, or transact and get something done, in which case the AI won't have the authority or access.

Take customer service chatbots. It really does not matter how "human" the bot is, if it isn't given any power, such as refunding an order. It can't really apologize either, without lying about its lack of empathy, creating a real life turing test between it and the customer.

Of course, businesses justify making refunds hard, so they often will prevent even humans that power, and arm them with templates and legal excuses anyway. Which explains why most customer service is sh*t. They're not there to help you, as much as they are paid to entertain the thought of helping you.

With code, at least the code is itself the end result, like the art. And it can be tested with execution and with unit testing. But most programming is still deciding what to name functions and what functions are needed. The implementation is just the technical task that "anyone" or "anybot" might do. It's the mindless part.

So like AI driving, the last mile of the problem may prove to be close to impossibly hard. Or at least, it isn't an AI problem that can be solved with current AI. It needs another breakthrough. Until then, even AI will continue to rely on human input. The furthest we'll get with AI coders is AI coders taking instructions from a coder, with the end result heavily dependent on what the human adds, not what the AI adds.

To me this is just a matter of scope for the abstraction you named "problem", because ultimately we can only solve one problem at a time, and everything we achieve is achieved incrementally.

Whether you explicitly break up your "problem" into smaller problems by organizing your workflow that way, or implicitly break it up by simply biting off bits as you work seems to be the difference. The former being more planned, with the latter requiring greater mental tracking and ad lib task management.

The greatest disadvantage regardless of how you work is task switching. If you're doing push-ups and sit-ups, it's easier to do 50 each x2 than 1 set of 2 each x 50. So if you include switching tasks as a task, you're doing 3 exercises, not 2, and your work becomes 150 instead of 100.

You asked for directions.

In this order:

1. Write a resume and publish a professional profile site. Just you being honest, in your voice, describing the hard work you've put in, the achievements you're most proud of, and what you wish for your career. 95% of networking is putting on a public face and making it public. Last 5% is asking for stuff, like jobs.

2. Talk to your boss. Show him your resume and site. Ask for a raise and less work hours. Tell him you're burning out.

3. Depression will creep on you, and it will happen before burnout. But depression will have you thinking negative thoughts, fog your brain, and drain your energy. Diet, sleep, and exercise will help immediately. Not being lonely also (dating successfully/being in a relationship with someone who is healing). That being said, depression and your life are completely separate. You could be 10x better, richer, better looking, and still be depressed. So try to keep your depression separate from your ego and your professional struggles. Depression is its own problem. Treat it on its own terms.

Everyone successful in life that I know do all of the above ALL THE TIME.

This is a checklist only the first time you do them. But from there, they need to be routine. Always be searching for jobs, always be negotiating with your boss, and always stay on top of your mind and body and keep them happy also.

That'll provide new constant tailwind, and new direction. And as you keep at it, your site will improve, your relationship with your boss/es will improve, and you'll begin to feel a heck of a lot better about absolutely everything.

One last tip on negative talk. Your post is extremely negative, just based on the word count of sadder, more negative words (stuck, unable, loser, wasted).

A healthy exercise would be to write the same thing without those words.

"I've been working hard for 10 years and am still patiently waiting for a big break. I work extremely hard, and never complain. I work at a startup and have been handling all of their programming from the day I started work."

That's saying the same thing. That's someone struggling all the same.

Now, most realists/literalists can only see the world and write about it one way. Optimism is but a point of view. But here's how to skip this debate entirely with others (like me) and yourself.

Just make it a point to do positive. Make a positive difference.

Let your negative mind speak, but don't act on any negative impulses.

So to go full circle, do something on the list of three things above to make a positive difference each day.

Look for positive, do positive, and be the positive difference. Your words and attitude will follow.