Is it your contention that if an obese, not-runner who views walking as a form of exercise were to start running, the immediate effect would not be knee injury, but actually strengthened knees, on the evidence of a study comparing recreational runners to people who are obese and don't move at all?
> Is it your contention that if an obese, not-runner ...
No. Every exercise regime must include a ramp up period. If I started training like an olympian tomorrow I'd be in the hospital by next week. Same thing if a couch potato tried to insta jump into my workout routine.
My contention is with people who don't even try running because they're worried about a hypothetical injury 30 years later.
You can also adjust your training volume if it becomes a problem. For example I got an achilles injury because it turns out 3 marathons in 1 year was too many and I needed to put more focus on recovery.
If you don't do anything legally threatening, then you make it that much harder for every single OSS vendor to make money, because the precedent is getting established that there is no penalty for breaking the rules.
When I was a teenager I would do super cut-rate work on computers for people, and my father did helpfully point out that undercharging for valuable work just makes it harder for people whose day job is to do the same work, because then they have to compete with a naive teenager. You're the kind hearted OSS / freemium vendor in this case. Threatening legal action costs nothing. Punishment is meant as a deterrent for antisocial behavior. Failing to even threaten them will result in less money going to people who deliver a public good.
Not really. If you want it to have teeth, then it should come under a lawyer's letterhead, and that usually costs something (probably not much, for one letter).
> It costs your reputation as a vendor which is permanent.
You say that as if that is some bad thing. As a vendor you want to have a reputation for asking what you are fairly owed. The other option is to have a reputation for being a wet tissue anyone can walk through.
> You don't threaten legal action against companies before calmly advising them of the situation.
These are not incompatible with each other. Of course you calmly advise the company of the situation. 100%. You tell them that their 15 day trial period lapsed at <date> and that they continue using the <product> without proper license in place. You tell them where they can reach out to find the right licence for their needs. And you tell them that you intend to pursue them for damages if they remain out of compliance. All very calmly and professionally. Nobody is angry with anyone here. There is no bad blood. It is just a contracting oopsie!
There's no obligation to publicly reveal the threat of a lawsuit to a party that is abusing your license. In fact, if you don't reveal the existence of the lawsuit, the only way then that you'd gain that reputation is if the threatened party then publishes their threat, which they won't do if they straight up know that they're in the wrong, because then that damages their reputation. Why would a big company publish a blog about a small company suing them for blatantly violating their software license? They want that crap to go away. Get the money. Shaming a company doesn't make anyone any money unless they decide to voluntarily comply, which is what is being asked here. They're being asked to voluntarily do the right thing. If they were likely to voluntarily do the right thing, they would've done that first.
People try to maximize the good and minimize the bad consequences of their actions. They might not do it using utils or with actual quantification but they are doing it. And definitionally, there's no way to get rid of an incentive to defect, because getting rid of it creates a new incentive to defect in a different way. Like, for the purposes of talking about this article, "incentive" could be shorthand for "any reason you could come up with to do something wrong to get ahead" but it could also more broadly be defined as "the expected good results of a choice". As an example, as long as money is important in society, there is always going to exist an "incentive" to rob a bank. That can't be removed. What we can do is make it harder to rob a bank, and force reputational damage and jail to thieves. Creating a society where money doesn't matter might be possible, but then there'd be no bank. By the same token, there will always be an incentive to fake data. We can make it harder to fake data and force reputational damage to people who fake data, but that incentive to fake will exist. The only way that it wouldn't exist would be if we made it so that the outcomes of research didn't matter at all, but it would be hard to imagine a society functioning where any research would be happening if no outcomes mattered. If that were the case, then high school dropouts would try to get research grants for baking soda and vinegar volcanoes. The only way to prevent that would be to create a system where people have to justify their research without caring about the results, but then you've reintroduced "incentives", just different ones that can still be cheated again.
By arguing that it's the moral character of people that's the problem and not the mere incentives, one key disincentive is reintroduced which is the reputational damage thing I alluded to earlier. Most people don't rob banks not because there's no incentive, but because the disincentive (jail, reputational damage) is so high as to make that course of action seem stupid. But if you argue that it's incentives and not moral character to blame, you remove the disincentive of making defectors suffer reputational damage. You can't remove an incentive entirely. You can only change them, and add disincentives. Reputational harm is one of those disincentives, and so is forcing things like pre-registering experiments, open access journals, etc.
This point is so obvious and self-evident that I'm really amazed that anybody is acting as if that's not the central thesis of the essay. One of the first links is to a PDF with a title by Mar Hicks called "Sexism is a feature, not a bug." Every single time someone argues sincerely or otherwise that sexism is no longer a problem in software development communities, please think back to the time that all these self described hackers couldn't read an essay spelling out in detail that the "technical" designation is socially constructed by everyone else without your permission and often is along gendered lines - they all read that, missing the point, and said "sure you can!" How many of these same commenters have described and will go on to describe a colleague with more mathematical, statistical, and scientific rigor than they and be like "oh, she's not that technical"? Will it be all of them?
Maybe people are acting that way because the article explicitly states that gender is not the main point. But of course that wouldn't make for nearly as good of a reactionary commentary.
Their own examples are constantly bringing up gender instead of any other relevant point. It reads to me like someone who has heavy bias in that area but is trying to deflect instead of address it.
I just don’t get why it matters. So, redefine and reclaim whatever you want technical to mean! The term is constructed, SO CONSTRUCT IT THEN.
Every single human is excluded from some club they might otherwise want to be a part of. Exclusion and inclusion, in some proportion, is the human condition.
The author is a psychologist. Okay. I am a high school dropout who studies and uses psychology and sociology in my work. I am never going to be called a sociologist or a psychologist. I accept that. But I am those things, in some real and practical sense. I am a scientist and a philosopher and I am not swayed by anyone claiming those identities who tells me I’m not. They don’t have to include me in their reindeer games and I won’t waste an erg of my energy asking them to.
I am technical. I am a man. I judge whether other people are technical, or for that matter whether they are men. My judgements may or may not influence other people. So what?
I read the essay because I was trying to understand what her motivation is. What is her project? I’m still not sure. I don’t buy that exclusion and othering and lacking “full humanity” should or do matter (they are facts of our existence… now what? complaining about them mostly creates hostility because power is real and powerful people will act to defend themselves.)
Still I found it thought provoking and endearing in a weird way. It was a usefully irritating essay by someone very different from myself.
If the argument is that it's not a big deal because it doesn't even work, then why collectively are we even bothering? Either it works and is something for reactionaries to fear and is effective social pressure, or it's a bunch of ineffective sound and fury that gives cover to your right wing aunt to tell stories about how "someone she knows" got fired for telling a joke. If it works, then let's own it completely, with all its flaws. If it doesn't work, then why bother at all? If it doesn't even work, then why try to defend the practice? Do we want it to work? Do we want it to be an effective form of social control?
We don't build parking smart here in the States, period. Parking lots should be multi-story to serve multiple buildings and have an array of solar panels on the roof to contribute to the city's power needs.
Oceans 11 is a work of fiction because most people don't have that skillset and the ones who do can make a lot of money doing honest work without risking a long prison sentence, so they're not tempted to rob casinos to heisting music.
The issue here is that the skillset required to produce the forgery has fallen to the level that anybody can do it and then that's enough people that somebody actually does.
Are we just straight up ignoring the Jia Tan xz exploit that happened 10 months ago that would've granted ssh access to the majority of servers running OpenSSH?, or does that not count for the purposes of this question, because that was an open source library rather than a hardware manufacturer?
It's pretty obviously sarcastic, but it's interesting because ChatGPT thinks it's sincere. It appears that sarcasm detection is still outside the capabilities of large language models, which is surprising because people have been manually annotating sarcastic remarks on internet forums for the past 30 years. How could it get simpler than that to create a training set?
Choosing not to buy is still a choice and it seems like it's not so illusory as to escape notice by reporters and (by extension) the companies themselves.
