That is an issue of ignorance, not laziness. It’s not obvious at all to an average developer that only uses `add/commit/merge/fetch/push/pull/rebase/restore/reset` that they can manipulate their change history.
From what I understand many of the pie doughs of the period were the same thing as pudding dough, everyone had a pot to boil stuff in and it was just extra if you had an oven and pie pans, sometimes with noted cooking times for a pan at the end. The that era of American cooking kind of blends puddings and pies so that they mean basically the same thing. Similar someone making a pan fried rice recipe today and just adding on the end of the recipe if you are fancy and own an actual wok you can adjust cooking times for that.
Individuals and small groups make decisions in their own interest. The same is not true of society. That’s the issue that the GP is asking you to respond to
I suppose I might not be understanding your and the GP's intent correctly, but I thought that the question was based on the following sentences:
> I think it would be good service to use AI tools to bring open source alternatives like sympy and sage and macaulay to par.
> It would be really nice to have better software written by strong software engineers who also understands the maths for mathematicians.
And my response is that I think that this sort of work, which is in the public scientific interest should be funded by tax money, and the results distributed under libre licenses.
Well said. Do you know of any recent reports or if anyone has actually gone through the funding calculations regarding the funding model you described (let’s call it “FF-direct”) versus Mozilla’s status quo funding model?
Primary questions are: How much does FF cost to sustain? How much is spent on new performance, functionality and feature development? What number does Firefox need to compete directly with Chrome? If you asked an experienced FF project contributor what is the delta between the previous two questions?
- a 20+ year Firefox power user very familiar with the FF project, web browsers, and how they compete
I haven't seen those kinds of numbers, but I agree they'd be good to have.
I know that firefox makes a massive amount of money from Google (last I heard they made something like 400 million a year) and firefox was bringing in 90% of Mozilla's total income which means that the money firefox beings in isn't just going into firefox, but is holding up everything mozilla does. Even if a donation model was sufficient to support the browser, mozilla may not be happy about losing almost everything else they have going.
As for competing with chrome, I don't think they need to. Most people's only computer these days is an android phone and chrome is always going to be a first class citizen there. We saw the same thing with IE when windows was the operating system most people used.
It's perfectly fine for Chrome to be the default browser for the common people leaving firefox to be the preferred choice of the computer savvy. Firefox could slowly gain an audience as people start to become more aware of how chrome violates their privacy or as they seek relief from the worsening cesspool of ads chrome is encouraging the internet to become, but firefox never has to be number 1 or anywhere close to that in order to be successful and valued.
You can work your day job and make $20-500k/yr or pursue drug dealing and make $5-5000k/yr. I don’t think that’s actually a compelling argument for the latter even if the opportunity cost is better.
Drugs are illegal, exploits are not illegal. Selling them to someone associated with illegal activity is probably illegal, but there is a legitimate fully legal exploit market with buyers like intelligence agencies, and an illegal market with buyers that run oppressive regimes and commit genocide.
Literally just a join against a lookup table of alternate ISBNs. So the ISBNs in the reading list were first “expanded” with all possible titles, then they were matched to the books actually in the library.
The ISBN alternatives table was just groups with an integer ID shared by each group. My import process synthesised this from worldcat data, which was more messy.
I believe that this entire thing is a moral panic.
The only evidence anybody has ever provided is that students are top universities are more likely to have registered disabilities. The conclusion you are supposed to draw from this is that students at top universities are fraudulently accessing accommodations that make their coursework easier such that they have inflated grades and an unfair advantage in the job market. And then you are supposed to conclude that we need a large overhaul in the way that disability accommodations work at universities.
There are about five steps that are needed to go from the evidence to these conclusions, none of which are supported by evidence.
I do not believe that there is any compelling reason to seek a solution here.
Thanks for writing this out. I don’t agree at all but that’s fine.
What is your opinion of one of the most concerning counterpoint (in my opinion): that we are normalizing prescription stimulants and accommodations for individuals that otherwise don’t need them / could succeed without them.
Know that I don’t really care too too much from a fairness standpoint, especially in the professional workplace. I’m most concerned with subjecting a generation of people to a reliance of stimulants and secondly concerned about the affects on the ability for HS and university educators to assess and evaluate their students.
———
Edit: Third and less seriously, a hypothetical: if I learned that >40% of our elite students or young professionals were on Xanax, cocaine, ketamine, or encapsulated meth or required an assistant to take notes and record lectures I would be appalled. How would you interpret this?
My thought is that it is a clear signal of a social or cultural malady if our best and brightest - as a population - are strongly overrepresented in their reliance on disability accommodations or prescription drugs.
> What is your opinion of one of the most concerning counterpoint (in my opinion): that we are normalizing prescription stimulants and accommodations for individuals that otherwise don’t need them / could succeed without them.
First, the question of university accommodations is completely separate from the question of prescription medicine. I don't have any opinion about the rate of prescriptions for things like ADHD, largely because I have no information. For university accommodations I am not aware of compelling evidence that they are being over-granted for people who do not need them. Notice how all of this panic stops at "lots of people have listed disabilities" and don't actually demonstrate that these people are getting oodles of accommodations. My experience as a spouse of a professor is that a ton of students with registered disabilities nevertheless do not get any form of special treatment and there has been literally zero change in her ability to evaluate students even when they do get accommodations.
You can be concerned about stimulants if you want. That is a totally different topic.
I think there is a fallacy to look at endowments like they are checking accounts. Or to assume elite universities generally have unused land or can rebuild a large amount of their dorms for less than hundreds of millions of dollars and significant disruption to campus life
reply