kentrado

I thought this was going to be about gnome's controversial design decisions.

In any case, I think the author is misguided, spending valuable energy in a futile endeavour.

Just use a patched version with your own fix. A lot of package managers make this trivial.

When I send code upstream, I don't care about it at all. If they ignore me, it doesn't affect me because I am already running my own version.

Nowadays, this is even easier because you can use llms to handle the possible merge conflicts during updates.

This is extremely helpful. I have never considered the possibility that there could be a better method to deal with emulation than visual commands.

You have no idea how much this helps me.

In order to bring understanding to this discussion, we can separate unions into two types: vertical unions and horizontal unions.

Vertical unions are hierarchal. They have administrative staff that are not necessarily workers and they reproduce the characteristics of our electoral system in a smaller scale. This includes corrupt elected officials who have back deals with companies, etc.

The horizontal unions are non hierarchical. They are based on the practice of anarcho syndicalism. The union is just a collection of smaller unions, each has autonomy to make their own decisions. The delegates can be recalled at any time. All staff are workers and decisions are collectively being made.

For horizontal unions, the person you are responding to is correct. You and your colleagues are the ones that decide how it is going to run.

For vertical unions, you are correct. A few influential members have all the power.

You are both correct but just not talking about the same thing.

You are conflating JLR and the suppliers.

They are different businesses.

JLR has enough money and will be fine. That's not the issue. The unions are talking about the small businesses down the chain.

I don't well understand this. How is clojure more efficient than common lisp?

Would you explain further?

Seems like a problem with the client rather than the protocol.

So you are saying it is better if the candidate lies.

Otherwise you will be forced to reject him because there might be a possibility that the problem was him.

Seems like you are hiring the best liars. Or at least the best at playing an arbitrary game of saying and not saying the correct things that won't trigger a rejection.

At this point, are you even needed? Maybe we could replace the interview process with a lottery system. Same result, less expensive.

He Is talking about a worker cooperative. You can search information about current ones if you are truly interested in how they work.

I agree with him that software engineers should be making the decisions in Mozilla.

Reality is often complicated and ideology fails to fit everything in a neat little box.

So, it could be that central planning is good for some use cases and bad for others. Likewise, with liberalised economies.

There may even be some overlap between the two.

China has central planning.

I would argue that it is way easier to build a business around GPL licence than MIT.

I think the subject at hand is different from what you are writing.

What you are saying doesn't apply to the debate between permissive licenses and copy left licenses.

That's where you make your fundamental mistake. We are not programmed for self preservation.

Inside us, there are different drives that shape our behaviour.