Depending on where you live, this may well result in the vulnerable person being placed under professional supervision that actively prevents them from dying.
That's a fair bit more valuable than when you describe it as raising a flag.
Yeah... I have been in a locked psychiatric ward many times before and never in my life I came out better. They only address the physical part there for a few days and kick you out until next time. Or do you think people should be physically restrained for a long time without any actual help?
That sounds like a pretty risky and irresponsible sort of study to conduct. It would also likely be extremely complicate to actually get a reliable result, given that people with suicidal ideations are not monolithic. You'd need to do a significant amount of human counselling with each study participant to be able to classify and control all of the variations - at which point you would be verging on professional negligence for not then actually treating them in those counselling sessions.
Depends on to what extent you value continuity of the idea. The idea of returning to Palestine without the precursor of the arrival of the Messiah is a relatively young idea, dating back only to the 19th century. This leaves a pretty big gap between the 613 revolt against Heraclitus to Theodore Herzl. I suppose one could count “next year in Jerusalem” as part of the aspiration. I’m not an expert and could be wrong (or maybe probably I am) but it seems a stretch to me.
I would argue completely the opposite, and that we actually have a very clear set of descriptors available to us, each of which is a subset of the following ones:
Yes we have clear & good descriptors available. I wasn’t arguing against those. I was simply pointing out that those aren’t the only definitions of the words free & open, which is a fact. It’s a fact that FSF and OSI have both used in their own arguments! I’m slightly surprised by the pushback and downvotes (which probably means I didn’t state things clearly or come off how I intended). OSI’s definition is logical today but took a long time to develop. It’s one of those things that’s hard to imagine never having heard, but if you had never heard it, you almost certainly wouldn’t jump to OSI’s definition upon hearing “open source” the first time. The lay public generally doesn’t either, and don’t know about licenses and the software community’s terms of art.
Surely the goal is to ensure that there is no erosion of FOSS as a concept?
The existence and growth of FOSS is something that has happened as a result of considerable advocacy, and while its broad success has become somewhat self-sustaining, there will never not be the risk of a slide into more single-corporation-friendly "source available" realms.
It's not a bad thing to push for "source available" to be considered as not going far enough, and to not let it supplant FOSS through purely pragmatic concerns.
> there will never not be the risk of a slide into more single-corporation-friendly "source available" realms
There is something off about this to me in a world where FOSS exists in it's present form primarily to the outsized benefit of hyperscalers and entrenched incumbents
There was a post on another forum earlier this week on this same broad topic which resonated deeply with me, as someone (who like most of the US population) is a layoff and a medical emergency away from ruin:
> When I started getting interested in open source, I had problems like unreliable software, the inability to inspect or improve it, limited experience with collaborating. Open source solved those, but now my most pressing problem is that the excellent software I use is undermaintained and outright abandoned because the creators can't afford to keep donating time to it. Open source has been a process for solving problems, not the end goal. If it's not capable of solving problems, it's time for new approaches.[1]
What would a new HST look like? Gonzo style journalism kinda already peaked in the 2010s with the wave of blogging and new media like Vice magazine.
HST was revolutionary because he broke the norms of journalism at the time while still making a coherent point. Nowadays journalism is plain broken, the norms are in tatters and the people that would be exposed don't give a shit and feel no shame for the awful things they do. No wonder HST offed himself.
Everyone wanted to be gritty in the 2010s and now no one is gritty because of it. I want the opposite now, and have a source with a coherent, reliable voice which I sort of get with the Economist.
Yes, that's exactly it. If people want to see what breaking the norms is today, it would be, I don't know because I wasn't alive then, Walter Cronkite?
Jim Lehrer was more recent and an excellent voice on a national scale in North America.
Ontario has Steve Paikin who, until very recently, hosted a current affairs show on public television. He is easily in the top 0.0001% of people who can make sense of anything that comes up in the news.
A solid contender is this writer, who I follow on Twitter. This was the first article I read of his (which directly references Thompson) and I was absolutely sold.
This is frankly morbid, but there was a good younger writer, Kaleb Horton, who I feel channeled the spirit of HST effectively, without the sense of direct mimicry. He died a few days ago, at a far-too-young age, but his work was excellent:
Robert Evans (iwriteok on bluesky) is similar. He's certainly more to the left than HST was and works in different media, but he's got the tall, authoritarian-hating druggie gun lover bit down pat.
I'd argue part of the reason the times are so absurd is that there's a whole ecosystem of gonzo journalists from Hasan Piker to Adin Ross to that one famous guy recently that got shot
> Thank goodness you took the time to let us all know this....
Be honest; how many times have we seen this? company, org or person flat out rejects an open source solution (which, most importantly, would actually work for them!), gets charity from the proprietary supplier and then complains when that charity comes to an end?
How many more times must we see it?
When working FOSS applications are rejected in favour of a proprietary product, well, there should be some pain for that decision.
If, as a technical decision maker (manager, founder, whatever), you make an unusually poor decision, you should get blowback for it.
For a long time there was literally no need for any decision maker to go with a proprietary chat solution. Anyone deciding to go with Slack, from this point onwards at any rate, deserve all the scorn they get.
It might be more correct to say that interest rates are relatively normal, historically. Post-2008 we had a long period of abnormally low interest rates.
Depending on where you live, this may well result in the vulnerable person being placed under professional supervision that actively prevents them from dying.
That's a fair bit more valuable than when you describe it as raising a flag.