> Not all books in all languages ever published are "somewhere out there".
I mean, they mostly are or can be. What's the point on relying on "nobody happened to catalog the book I copied my passphrase from"? Are you going to check every week that nobody uploaded it to an archive site?
For smaller languages the steps would be:
- Somebody would have to digitize an old book without mistakes.
- Somebody would have to publish it online.
- Somebody would have to scrape and archive that.
- Somebody would have to transliterate it to Latin script.
- That transliteration would also have be the same transliteration I'm using.
It's unlikely it will be done for a lot of languages.
> There's easier schemes that don't rely on that.
Remembering random words is hard. This is how we got into this in the first place.
> Remembering random words is hard. This is how we got into this in the first place.
It's really not. You just make a story out of it. My memory is quite crap, I'm still able to remember the ~3 passphrases I actually need, and I'm able to rotate them as required.
> But I’d be shocked if it’s legal anywhere to release a product that competes with what you work on at your job.
That happens everyday. In fact most companies are found by people who already work in the industry. You simply should not steal trade secrets, copyright or patents.
Everything can be a trade secret. They’re not labeled with a stamp that says “Trade Secret”. If you’re working on a direct competitor to something you make at work, you are almost certainly stealing trade secrets without even realizing.
It's about the cost of credit. References are free in academia. In music crediting means paying royalties. In academia the assumption is that citing is fair use up to a point (a paragraph? a page?). Since songs are much shorter, the window for "fair use" is also much shorter (5 seconds? 10 seconds?).
While I do agree with your first point, I think it's a bit .. obvious. Of course you need to create value in order to be great (or get rich).
Regarding the article, it doesn't match my experience. All the prolific creators I know (about) are prolific consumers as well. Writers are known to read a lot. The girl the author saw sketching on the bus probably loves looking at and reading about art and does it often as well as actually creating art.
The other issue is the amount of creative effort you can spend. For example, software engineering is a very creative job and often at the end of the day I just have no energy left to create more.
There's still a long road ahead until that happens. Writing a single function, even if includes a long a list of steps, is not the main challenge nowadays. The challenge is how the code is organized, i.e. architecture.
> workspaces are specifically _not_ intended to be used as environment replacements.
From Terraform's "An Overview of Our Recommended Workflow"[1]:
"The best approach is to use one workspace for each environment of a given infrastructure component. Or in other words, Terraform configurations * environments = workspaces."
So 1 workspace != 1 environment but workspaces are indeed intended to handle multiple environments.
I've personally struggled with managing multiple environments using Terraform so I'm interested in what the best practices are.
> the idea that conspiracies themselves are [..] a typology through which people who lack definite or satisfactory narratives as citizens explain to themselves [..]
I really like this idea. To me it means that conspiracy theories create modern day mythology. Ancient people used myths to explain to themselves things they either didn't understand or feared. I've always wondered how did they come with these outrageous ideas but it now makes sense.
The procedure to invent a conspiracy is quite simple.
Write down all the topics which "seem important" right now.
Eg., China, USA, Trump, Biden, AI, Virus, etc.
(Where do these terms come from? Mostly the news, conversation. But each person will produce a different list.)
Now all you have to do is connect all of them. This is, in reality, not possible. So one has to dispense with every greater "obvious truths" in order to make the connection work.
It is in this attempt to rationalise a free association that we get such mythologies.
It is the heart of how schizophrenics think. Psychosis is the mistaking of importance and connection in one's perceptions. And so it is quite common to find schizophrenia in the conspiracy theory population.
However if you havent been taught to be sceptical of yourself, etc., its a fairly "natural" way to think.
Similarly, if one hasn't been taught how to think relatively and absolutely simultaneously and at all times, the world can look very simple, like schizophrenics are prone to cognitive errors but normies are not. This is just one example from a very long list.
In English. Not all books in all languages ever published are "somewhere out there".