scj

"The usage of pork broth in an otherwise vegetarian dish is vegetarian in spirit."

I can't help but wonder if they're using the phrase "open source in spirit" to leech the branding of open source (while ironically treating other companies as leeches).

With the exception of board games that are related to existing games I already like, I treat Kickstarter as a negative signal for the first year.

Similar to a video game licensed movie, or a movie licensed video game; even if the title has elements I enjoy, I've been burned enough. Playing it is the only way I'll know I love it.

I can't even trust data collection on BGG, because typically the first wave of Kickstarter ratings are by people who have boarded the hype train. Followed by a re-alignment when people who are playing friends' copies step in.

Component quality bias, as well as cost bias are related (and typically compounded by Kickstarter) phenomena.

Who's fault is it when a Jenga tower is toppled?

Was it the last person to pull a piece out?

Maybe the person before, who barely managed to keep it upright?

Or is the tower doomed to fall by design?

Alternative, but similar scenario:

Let's say a database gets licensed under the defensive license by $CORPORATION_0. And let's say that $CORPORATION_1 makes many contributions to that database under the same defensive license (where they retain copyright). A little weird, but presumably both companies are comfortable with the situation.

Let's then say that $MEGA_EVIL_DB_CORP buys out the contributor $CORPORATION_1, and now $MEGA_EVIL_DB_CORP owns the copyright and has competing databases.

I'd assume both companies can no longer use the defensive licensed DB. Meaning all Oracle has to do to destroy the competition is buy whichever company is cheaper.

That seems like a bad attack vector.

I'd use the word liberated when referring to the peoples of Western Europe. But I'd be much more hesitant say Eastern European nations were liberated... Especially considering most would be Soviet puppet states for decades to come.

Does your comment about "treating them well" mean objectively well, or merely in comparison to the Nazis?

Even if there was a force capable of pushing back the USSR in 1945, I dread to think what a retreating Soviet Army would have done to the civilian population of occupied countries.

What about both..?

For example, I have a concept in my head that's like a hashtag but would translate to "over-optimized 80s/90s technologies that have aged poorly". It's a categorization that overlaps with a sense of frustration (typically because I'm using one) and joy that I'm seeing fewer of them these days...

I have a lot of similar "feelings" that are felt instantly, but would take dense English to express. It is kind of like observing some behaviour in a large codebase and trying to remember what's causing it. Connecting all the dots to find a satisfying explanation isn't always immediate.

This write-up on "clueyness" is a similar example to what I experience from time-to-time: https://waitbutwhy.com/2016/05/clueyness-a-weird-kind-of-sad...

In Canada, the concept is more "Crown Land" than "public land".

I don't know the answer to your question, but my instincts pose it in the negative sense: Why would there be a right to be on the Queen's land without permission?

Some people would demand fake videos supporting their point of view be taken seriously.

Also, it isn't difficult to imagine a future where people are criticized for correctly identifying deep fakes.

Canada's voter identification laws changed for 2015, then reverted for 2019. This was due to change in governments.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-election-2015-voter...

Realistically, in the short term the law is going to be "whatever the government wants it to be until the Supreme Court sets a precedent".

I somewhat suspect companies that apply "creative" licenses like this haven't been under a corporate legal department before.

Using a standard license is great. Using a custom license that is extremely similar to an existing license is not as good, but is usually workable...

Showing legal how to use Github so they can confirm the age of the software you're using, then convincing them Github is a reputable party will likely result in an unpleasant conversation at best.

Another factor to remember is snowfall. Where I live, we push snow to the side on roads, but it tends to stick around and accumulate for months at a time. Adding a secondary* infrastructure around bicycles would be costly.

But the big one is that the Netherlands has about half the population of Canada in an area the size of New Brunswick. Obviously they can afford better transport infrastructure than we can.

* Where I live, bike lanes become snow banks circa mid-January.

To both of your points of having more choice and lobbying: Market considerations matter.

With private prisons, lobbying is likely cheaper and more reliable than innovation.

I assume you didn't intend this in a sinister way, but exercise caution when speaking of experimenting with prisoners. Even with good intentions, remember that these people have limited choices, and will probably lack the ability to withdraw consent (assuming it was given in the first place).

Da Vinci's predictions of a helicopter weren't looking too good 170 years ago either. The history of flight in general is a great story of old dreams becoming reality.

And the dream has a simple origin, we knew birds could fly, so why couldn't humans?

The Industrial Revolution posed a similar question, if machines can do some kinds of work, why can't they do every kind of work?

A cynic would ask, what happens to the workers when there's no work? But I suspect the scarier question is, what happens when there's not enough work for everyone to be employed?

And modern transportation creates another question of what happens when the remaining work is happening elsewhere?

I understand what you're getting at, but most Canadians have a negative reaction to talking about profiting off healthcare.

Ensuring access to those who need it is the primary concern. If Americans were suffering an unintended shortage, that'd be one thing... But causing an artificial shortage for Canadians in order to profit off Americans would result in near immediate regulation.

Saying AI does funky things from time-to-time is hardly an extraordinary claim.

Meanwhile, an individual injecting bias without the hack's true purpose being obvious to co-workers would be difficult. The more subtle and circumstantial the hack, the more likely it will be broken/ignored by someone else's changes.

A hack is still possible, but I'd want evidence of intentional bias before entertaining the claim.

During John Glenn's first orbital flight, an indicator went off, causing concern over the heat shield.

Kraft and his team correctly determined the heat shield was fine. His judgement was ignored and he was forced to use an untested and unnecessarily risky procedure. Decades later, both Glenn and Kraft went on the record denouncing what happened. As a result, Kraft would define NASA policy as "the flight director may, after analysis of the flight, choose to take any necessary action required for the successful completion of the mission."

I can't imagine how Apollo 13 would have unfolded if this policy was not in place.

In this field, you're always going to have to learn things on your own... The trivial example is new technologies that weren't available when you were in university.

Blender is a complimentary offering. Improving it indirectly boosts business.

Assuming there are tax benefits for donating, it becomes a win-win.

Kid: I'd say the lower bound is around 5, and the upper bound is variable depending on the individual...

In this case, I'd suggest the upper bound doesn't matter, as the criteria for filtering should be "a semi-unattended 5 year old could view it without concern."

All your examples are of topics where it's probably best for parents to initiate their child's education on the topic rather than Youtube randomly putting it in some kid's feed.

In the system I've proposed, if there are enough test-Flanders thrown at the content the times closed should be different enough to trigger an unclear Flanders rating. This would indicate some other metric should be used.

I don't see this test working in isolation. Given it's nature, it's value is in obscure rejection statements rather than acceptance (or "okilly-dokillies" in this case).

To echo what others on this thread have said, there's a lot of content on Youtube. This means that even if they are cautious about which content passes through the filter for kids, there's still a lot available.

If Google takes the impractical route and hires a sufficient number of multilingual Ned Flanders, then they're still probably going to have a non-zero false positive rate (humans make mistakes too).

Whatever they do is going to have to be evaluated in terms of best effort / sincerity.

Semi-related: The fun of Youtube is when the recommendation algo gets it right and shows you something great you wouldn't have searched for. The value is that it can detect elements that would be near impossible for a human to specify. But that means it has to take risks.

Why would Youtube for Kids show anything on the topic of abortion?

I'm kind of wondering if a "Ned Flanders" user-detector is possible.

Search for users who stop videos at "offensive" moments, then evaluate their habits. It wouldn't be foolproof, but the "Flanders rating" of a video might be a starting metric.

Before putting something on YouTube for kids, run it by Flanders users first. If Flanders users en masse watch it the whole way through, it's probably safe. If they stop it at random points, it may be safe (this is where manual filtering might be desirable, even if it is just to evaluate Flanders Users rather than the video). But if they stop videos at about the same time, that should be treated as a red flag.

Of course, people have contextual viewing habits that aren't captured (I hope). Most relevantly, they probably watch different things depending on who is in the room. This is likely the highest vector for false positives.

The big negative is showing people content they obviously don't want for the sake of collecting imperfect data.

Cars are also useful in colder / rainy weather...

Where I live, people tend to ride motorbikes on a weather permitting basis. Which means the bulk of days are in late May, June, July, August, and early September. Assuming they can afford to have a second vehicle.

I'd go the other way... Give the impression there was something really valuable in there.

Have a main chamber with a solid pedestal in the center. Then, on walls throughout the complex, depict some golden treasure that never existed resting on said pedestal using wall art.

Imagine a scavenger, with a clear vision in their head of what the chamber looks like, arriving in an empty room: "Someone must have already raided this place."

Meanwhile, the nuclear material is under that chamber.

"This is where you get poison rocks to put in the rivers of enemies."

My semi-facetious answer to this case is "The time span of 3 Microsoft post-Ballmer CEOs." The first CEO to implement open source (Nadella), the second to continue the strategy, and the third to prove the second CEO wasn't a fluke!

The honest answer is at best I can forgive their bad behaviour. But I'll never forget it.

> but for quite some time they’ve shown they support OSS and developers in general.

I would be hesitant to describe a single CEO's tenure as enough time.