GreyEyedGhost

If you want to put an idea out there, permissive licenses are the most likely to promote it. Any individual or organization can use it without restrictions (or restrictions that aren't unpalatable to most). So if what you're trying to promote is an idea, a technique, or a standard, this type of license allows it to have the greatest reach.

I asked my company if I could use a password manager and they said no. So now they get a set of rotating passwords that are the same for all my work accounts. It doesn't really bother me - it's their data, not mine.

I'm not sure why you would buy an open-source company/product, particularly a GPLv3 one, if you didn't understand or agree with the premise. It's probably the stupidest decision he made. I'm not saying I agree with his other decisions, but most of them made some kind of business sense. With this one, he would have saved a lot of time and effort and received the same value if he'd just spun OO.o off ASAP. The linked timeline kind of says it all.

You're talking the CEO of a company who sued Google on the premise that header files, a descriptor file for what commands can be used and what parameters they took, should be copyrighted? The CEO who poisoned the OpenOffice community so thoroughly that the fork, LibreOffice, was founded by the leaders of OpenOffice and became the de facto standard instead of the original, and it happened overnight? That guy?

We can do a number of things, but dealing with the root causes for a number of societal issues will lead to better results than sweeping actions to stop things that are only hurting a tiny minority in any significant way.

Here's an example. Every study that has been done shows that alcohol use causes harm. People tend to enjoy it, however, to the point where they will break the law to have it. This makes it more difficult to diagnose and treat, and provides sources of income for organized crime if we ban it. So instead, we restrict its use to adults, heavily fine people who sell to minors, provide awareness campaigns, etc. Because sometimes a simple, heavy-handed solution creates new, larger problems.

The key issue seems to be people with poor mental health and/or critical thinking skills making poor decisions. The obvious answer would be to deal with their mental health or critical thinking issues, something which very few countries in the world are doing to any useful degree, but the US is doing worse than most developed countries.

Or we could regulate or ban AI. That seems easier.

Love that "disruptive" is a valid term for companies like that.

I have a Win11 ThinkPad for work, so I get MS ads, Lenovo ads, and 2 or 3 versions each of Teams and Outlook. We use SharePoint, so when I open a file from there via the web interface, I don't want to deal with that BS for printing. Depending if it's Word or Excel, the button/link for opening in the desktop app will be located differently (or maybe it's based on editing permissions), but it never fails to throw a dialog saying it couldn't open the file in desktop mode and asking if i want to cancel or try again...just before the desktop app opens.

Some of these things don't happen every day, but they all happen every week, and anyone who doesn't see a problem with that hasn't used a half-decent OS (and I'm willing to include early-release Win10 in that group, telemetry and Cortana notwithstanding).

Lol this is the typical takeaway. A better result would be to not engage in illegal practices and then it doesn't matter if you put it in writing, but that's not how you become a billionaire.

Regionally dependent, typically based on the weather, terrain, and how populated the area is. In cold places with more than 16 feet to bedrock, you will typically have basements because they're cheaper to heat in the winter and cool in the summer. If the bedrock or the water table is close to the surface, basements are too expensive or impossible. If there is lots of space around you and it isn't too cold, you won't have basements because they cost more per square foot than building on the surface. If you're densely populated (and don't have the exclusion conditions listed above), you will likely have a basements because it costs less to have a second floor (above or below) than it does to buy more land.

In short, bungalows have basements where it's more cost-effective than having a bigger bungalow.

Yes, but if you increase the funding, they will say "Why is science so expensive?"

Why can't we spend $20 billion on a full-scale reactor that may very well not work? Why is science so slow?