141–150 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the post : > Eligibility requirements for the $250,000 prize > The recipient must be living. So that rules out Aaron Swartz.
But it's a disobedience award, so... disobey the rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because everyone at MIT has authority to make press releases. Well, if they don't, that's still a SINGLE organization to my eyes. Just because some people there might disagreed at the time, it doesn't absolve the organization.
Did you even read the context of the comment you originally replied to? It refers to people , not an organization. >Aren't these the people that failed to defend Aaron Swartz? So no, these aren't the same people. However, it is the same parent organization, but I don't think anyone is disputing that even though that's the strawman you are attacking.
Organizations consist of people. There is some more stuff beyond that -- just some legal documents, buildings, and other assets, but the thing that actually has the agency to drive an organization is people.
>So no, these aren't the same people. However, it is the same parent organization, but I don't think anyone is disputing that even though that's the strawman you are attacking.
They are the same people that worked there and didn't protest publicly about the actions of the organization and/or didn't resign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aaron Swartz being dead is becoming annoying.
Aaron Swartz is mostly dead because of untreated mental illness. The things that happened to him were bad, but it's not MIT's fault he was suicidal.
However, what 26 year old computer nerd without a black belt wouldn't give suicide some thought when staring at an unjust sentence in a federal prison of fifty years, AKA five decades, AKA half a century, AKA the majority of their remaining life expectancy, AKA about twice as long as their entire life up to that point and more than twice as long as they can remember?
Who wouldn't at least consider suicide when faced with the realization that even with time off for good behavior, by the time they got out they'd be closer to retirement age than to a reasonable age for restarting a career? That they'd have spent the most productive years of their life rotting away in prison instead of producing?
Weighing your pain avoidance instinct against your self preservation instinct is entirely rational. We don't put all of the blame on mental illnes, even if the person was mentally ill, when someone jumps to their death from a burning building or when a cancer patient opts for euthanasia. It's inappropriate to do so for Aaron Swartz.
After reading the comments on this page, I am a little disheartened that apparently most people want to give what is basically a work grant to a dead guy. Regardless of what you think of someone like Aaron Swartz, there are plenty of people who are currently doing good work who could greatly benefit from something like this. Giving it to a dead person simply to make a political statement diminishes any impact this aw…
The funds presented to the winner of the award are not a work grant. There are no strings attached as far as I am able to tell by the rules or hidden agendas via the applications; for example, "If you are the winner, how might the $250k prize make a difference?"
Basically, to have expectations of how the winner might spend the funds is what it is, but to state it's basically a work grant is inaccurate.
After reading the comments on this page, I am a little disheartened that apparently most people want to give what is basically a work grant to a dead guy. Regardless of what you think of someone like Aaron Swartz, there are plenty of people who are currently doing good work who could greatly benefit from something like this. Giving it to a dead person simply to make a political statement diminishes any impact this aw…
Those who engage in more serious activism can name many offhand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MIT needs to be shamed publicly, regularly and continuously until they publicly apologize for their shameful behavior. Giving this award to Swartz, and giving the money to his parents, along with a public statement of remorse and a public commitment to behaving more honorably in the future, would be an excellent way for them to do this.
If MIT were a person, sure. But it is a large organization with members holding multiple competing views. If one group is trying to do something good, do not shame them for another groups deeds, use them. I'm not saying that this prize corrects the injustice done. It's an orthogonal option to do good. My 2c.
Wonder how many times Edward Snowden will be nominated? :)
"Engaged in" makes it sound like they're more interested in ongoing disobedience, e.g. the folks at sci-hub.
I've nominated Alexandra Elbakyan of sci-hub and encourage everyone else to do the same. I'd also be happy if Aaron Swartz won!
I voted for Alexandra Elbakyan. Her blog - https://engineuring.wordpress.com/ Her email - mindwrapper@gmail.com
Also, who runs Library Genesis? Those people could use the prize too!