And, even if you do lobby the government full time, what if you’re a lobbyist who works on behalf of environmental groups. If the Sierra Club wants to alert politicians about a secret clause snuck into a new bill regulating coal mines, they can hire you to talk to the right people. If a town like Flint, Michigan is having trouble with contamination of their water supply, they can hire you to find the right people to talk to.

Maybe in an ideal world every politician would have enough time and enough staff to fully investigate things on their own. But, in the real world, we’re probably always going to need people to talk to the decision makers and advocate on our behalf.

What we really should have is good oversight and tight rules to ensure it’s just talking and not doing favors, giving money, etc.

What about a lobbyist who works for say the Electronic Frontier Foundation? Or a nurses union. Or who works for the Sierra Club, or some organization trying to protect the environment?

“Lobbying” is just talking to a politician on behalf of a person or group. If the Hollywood studios all hire lobbyists to talk to representatives about why copyright terms should be longer and DRM should be mandatory, doesn’t it make sense that there should be people telling the other side?

I get that too often lobbyists overstep ethical boundaries. Often, they either effectively bribe politicians, or they write up laws allowing the politician to just rubber-stamp them. But, you could shore up and/or enforce laws restricting that kind of thing, while still allowing a representative of a group to meet with a politician and explain their point of view.

That’s not really a common situation though. Sure, people might use the BSD license on something they did as a hobby, or just to learn things. But, the scenario described here is more like:

A group of people all have the same little problem, and they work together to come up with a solution for it. They solve the main problem, but their solution has a few rough edges and there are similar problems they didn’t solve, but they’re not motivated to keep working on it because what they have is good enough for their current needs. So, they put out some flyers describing how to do what they did, and inviting anybody who’s interested to keep working on improving their fix.

A company comes along, sees the info, and builds a tool that solves the problem but not quite as well, and for a small fee. They spend tons of money promoting their solution, drowning out the little pamphlet that the original guys did. They use as much IP protection as possible, patenting their designs, trademarking the look and feel, copyrighting the instructions, etc. Often they accidentally(?) issue legal threats or takedown notices to people who are merely hosting the original design or original pamphlets.

Maybe the original inventor didn’t get screwed in this scenario, but you could say that the public did.

Theoretically, this could hit Linux too. You could run a Linux kernel mod containing closed source stuff from a third party vendor which causes the system to kernel panic. The difference is really cultural. Linux admins would howl at that kind of setup, whereas for Windows it’s more standard.

Code review, QA team, hours of being baked on an internal test network, incremental exponential roll out to the world, starting slow so that any problems can be immediately rolled back. If they didn’t have those basics, they have no business being a tech company, let alone a security company who puts out windows drivers.

No they won’t, not if they’re in the slightest bit competent.

Blameless post-mortem culture is very common at big IT organizations. For a fuck-up this size, there are going to be dozens of problems identified, from bad QA processes, to bad code review processes, to bad documentation, to bad corner cases in tools.

There will probably be some guy (or gal) who pushed the button, but unless what that person did was utterly reckless (like pushing an update while high or drunk, or pushing a change then turning off her phone and going dark, or whatever) the person who pushed the button will probably be a legend to their peers. Even if they made a big mistake, if they followed standard procedures while doing it, almost everyone will recognize they’re not at fault, they just got to be the unlucky person who pushed the button this time.

Yep. Because stealing is a crime that goes back thousands of years. It was an old crime by the time the 10 commandments were written down. Meanwhile, copyright infringement is a new thing that’s maybe a few centuries old at most, and it’s a lot more morally ambiguous. Is it wrong to infringe on a monopoly that the government has given a corporation over the sharing of a tangible expression of an idea? Maybe sometimes? Maybe not other times?

One woman can deliver a baby in an hour, if she’s a doctor or a midwife.

Their are other misteaks people make aswell, alot of people don’t know english good.

Most people don’t live in Northern Ontario.

Most Ontarians live in cities.

Humans are descended from apes, humans are apes, and humans are cousins of the other modern apes.

We’re not descended from chimpanzees, but both we and chimpanzees descend from another ape.

Piracy has never been stealing. It’s copyright infringement. The two are completely different.

Also, most people are nearly athiests.

Christians deny the existence of Zeus, Ra, Mars, Shiva, Odin, Thor, Kali, Horus, Tew, Huitzilopochtli, Pele, Erra… Of all the gods and goddesses that people have ever said exist, Christians don’t believe in any of them other than their one god. Even Hindus, who have a pantheon with multiple gods, generally don’t believe in the gods of other religions.

The one freedom the GPL removes is the freedom to be a leech. If you’re linking to GPL code, you are agreeing to follow the same rules as everybody else who has contributed to that code. Nobody gets a pass

Work for hire is a completely different situation. You have to accept the terms of whoever’s paying you to do the work.

This comic is more about someone doing something as a hobby project, or writing their own software not under someone else’s direction, where they have full freedom to choose their own license.

The one that is easier to develop for will likely get more features which leads to more users.

Not necessarily. It might get more developers at first when people think it’s going to be the Next Big Thing ™, but if nobody uses it, the devs might not feel their effort is worth it and might move on.

Why wouldn’t people use it, despite it having “more features”? Because social media is mostly driven by network effects. People go where other people go. All the people there create content which gives people a reason to go there. In the distant past, Facebook only grew because it was so easy to move from MySpace. And, it was easy to move from Friendster to MySpace, and so-on back to the origins of social media. Since then, the walls of the walled gardens have become much higher. Every social media company actively makes it difficult to move to other platforms because they want to keep any users they have. You might hate Facebook, but you like Aunt Jane, and she’s only on Facebook, so you stay on Facebook.

That’s like saying “Watch my new TV show, it’s better than the other shows because our scripts are printed on an Epson printer!”

the imagery of hyper masculine leather daddies

The point is, while they might dress up like that when going to a club, or while getting intimate with partners, they don’t tend to do that at their day jobs. And, if they did and their day job was presenting YouTube science / maker videos, I wouldn’t want to share their videos either.

She’s obviously free to do whatever she wants. Well… let me rephrase that. This article is about how she’s in China and has disappeared, so she’s obviously not free to do whatever she wants. But, as long as she’s within the margins of what’s acceptable on YouTube, she’s allowed to dress how she wants in her videos. Having said that, apparently she’s had videos demonetized for sexual content before. My point is just that as a potential consumer of her videos, I’d be more likely to watch and share them if what she wore wouldn’t result in HR violations in even the most freewheeling of tech startups.

It really doesn’t matter what her reasons for doing it are. Maybe it’s because she’s incredibly insecure about being seen as a boy. Maybe it’s because she’s a lesbian and part of a subculture that emphasizes a ridiculous take on the feminine form. Maybe she’s doing it because it attracts horny male viewers. It’s probably a mix of all those things, even if she doesn’t admit it. I wouldn’t want her kicked off YouTube, and don’t even think it’s reasonable to demonetize her content. But, personally, I’ll be watching and sharing other channels.

I watched the video, it’s unconvincing. I don’t think she’s lying per se, just that her justification for doing all her videos wearing skimpy clothing is pretty thin. She says she’s doing it because she’s a “dee”, but in the videos she shows, she’s the only one who looks remotely like that. She shows herself walking her dog in fairly normal clothing, but claims she can’t do that on her videos. She thinks that unless she’s wearing absolutely skimpy clothing that someone’s going to mistake her for a boy. Sure…

Yes and?