Perhaps at that point she realized that her ideas were shit, and a system where you contribute to a public safety net is not a bad idea, it's what society is for.
Or perhaps she was still a dense prick to the end of her days. Who knows?
1. I’m not an objectivist.
2. Looks like the comment I replied to is heavily downvoted and soon to be flagged. Seems like I’m not the only one that agrees that it doesn’t contribute. I expect a similar thing to happen to yours shortly as well.
The universe is meaningless and the world is cursed. Sentient beings are the ones ascribing meaning to the meaningless, uncaring universe. You have only a short amount of time while you can do this. Once life is finished, you just become inert matter.
Curiously enough, I don't think this invites nihilism. The opposite, really. The difference between kindness and malevolence exists because we perceive a difference, and give meaning to actions - they are either kind or malevolent.
If we can give meaning to things, it is imperative that we do so, and act accordingly. It is out little defiance to the great enveloping cosmic nothing.
There's a reason 'come to Jesus moment' is an expression.
Aka the uncertainty collapse of effective altruism -- in which someone realizes they might die before getting to the altruism part, and have to confront the "effective" things they did without any moral counterbalance.
If someone feels guilty about the things they've done when facing death, then they should immediately take actions that try and redress them.
Otherwise, there's an almost certainty they'll revert to being the same asshole they were so uncomfortable facing in the mirror, after mortal peril has passed.
Being someone different requires action, not just thoughts.
I can't imagine that it wouldn't be. If a company has explicit written permission from the copyright owner granting permission to use that copyright, then they can use it.
Also, it wouldn't be a special license. If you wanted to do a "For my friends everything, for my enemies the law" thing, you'd just set it as all rights reserved and add special note encouraging people to ask for permission to use it.
Plus, copyright enforcement typically goes in the other direction. It's not about who you can sue, it's about who you can't. Licenses are just a way of specifying who you cannot sue. If you want everybody to use your project but don't want to bother with a license, you can make it all rights reserved (the legal default) and just not sue anybody. You could sue them if you wanted to (which is why nobody would ever use your code: because of the risk that you change your mind and sue them), but nobody is forcing you to.
Why would it not be enforceable? If you own the copyright on your software anybody that wants to use it has to get a license from you. The traditional way is for you to sell those licenses for money, but you could also decide to give them away based on how much you like the buyer.
Or a hybrid, sell them, but refuse to sell to certain entities and discount up to 100% to others based on how much you like them.
Of course it is, that’s literally contract law. You’re agreeing a contract to licence them access with specific terms.
The reason they invented the standard licences is to avoid this cost and effort. Do you really want to write a 200 page legal contract for every user for software you’re giving away for free?
Is that the implication? I thought that the legal contract you mentioned was a standard document, basically the same for everyone that was licensed. But I am not s lawyer, and I don't pretend to be one.
It would be neat to have this licese codified (Like we have MIT, GPL, etc), with the proper incentives to "ask for open source access, if I lile you, you might get it". And, of course, a "contract" that gave licensees the open source benefits.
One of the open source benefits is the ability to distribute the software to others under the open source license. So if you gave your friends an open source license (which you can do) they could then license the software to anyone else they want to under the same license (As that is part of the definition of open source). If you want to restrict them from doing this, you could make your own custom license that restricts this (but it would not be open source).
For sure. The main benefit is that it allows smart, hardworking but poor students to get a degree and utilize their brainpower productively for the benefit of all. That's great.
Just don't say it's "free" - those who get the education pay back all they got via taxes (which in it's end effect are like paying down a student loan).
Just going to point out that this is semantic hair-splitting that usually comes from opponents of governments providing for the social welfare. Not saying you're doing that, but it's a thing that happens.
And nobody thinks free education doesn't cost anything, just like people don't think the military doesn't cost anything. Somehow, though, there is endless trillions for "defense", and a little moth flies out of the wallet when it's for something that doesn't involve drones.
Absolutely. I never would say it is "free". But in many ways it is a matter of what one values.
I had opportunities to move to the US and likely make 2x-3x what I make here and pay less taxes. I chose moving to Europe instead. It is the sort of society I prefer to live in.
People without a degree: Work and pay high taxes for years while their peers are studying, and then continue to pay high taxes to pay for the high salaries of degree holders who used their degrees to get government "jobs".
People with a degree: Get free education and free stipends, then get paid by the tax payers for the rest of their lives in their cushy government "jobs".
In South America there's also no anxiety over China becoming a superpower, which may be an argument against Chinese products in the US.
In fact, China has pretty good relations with most South American countries. Likely better than the US. I wouldn't be surprised if many people view China more favorably.
The average person in the west isn't losing sleep over China either. That anxiety is mostly manufactured by the media pushing the narrative that they are an existential threat. Maybe they are, I don't know. But what I do know is that western companies love it when they can sell you overpriced products made in China, but panic the moment chinese companies sell the exact same product at a fair price.
Hmm, I wonder if that might have anything to do with the decades of state sponsored terrorism the US has inflicted on the entire region since the 70s? Maybe it wasn't the best idea to make that "we will coup whoever we want" crashout tweet in between begging for crumbs of latam market share?
If the company does not want to comply they can simply stop operating there.
reply