not all people can access usukeu based payment systems, so no.
greg just proposed sanctions, more sanction. without disriminating that for some kids 1 is too much or impossible.
greg why do you want more suffering to people?
GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source
291–300 of 352 posts
Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is the piece so many that are stuck in the hustle culture mindset miss, and why they are so quick to dismiss anything like UBI or a strong social safety net that might “reduce people’s motivation”. There are many many creative, caring people that are motivated to create things or care for each other for the sake of it, not for some financial reward. Imagine the incredible programs, websites, games, craft…
The hikikomori [1] or NEETs ought to be a hotbed of creative works if your hypothesis is true. And they aren't, plain and simple. There is effectively zero evidence suggesting a population on UBI will result in some sort of outpouring of creativity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori and it's not a phenomenon limited to Japan.
Hikkis will barely have their (speaking from Maslow) physiological needs met, and seldom their safety and security needs. This leaves them with very few mental-emotional resources to put into even having any creative thoughts. UBI would absolutely uplift these people into a position where they can start producing output.
Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Work for free making open source code and giving it away for free. 2. Giant corporations take all my code without giving me anything. 3. Now I'm really angry! I should have gotten some money from them! 4. The government must force my neighbours to pay a salary to me! 5. Continue to work for free making open source code for giant corporations, so they can profit. How about instead?: 1. Don't work for free or give a…
> The government doesn't need to oppress innocent people to pay your salary Pretty much everything a government can do is going to qualify as "oppression" if you use the term so broadly that's it includes levying taxes, so that's pretty much a meaningless characterization. Let's put it in more concrete terms: if the US government passes a law to raise taxes to fund UBI, that probably wouldn't even make the last of th…
> Pretty much everything a government can do is going to qualify as "oppression" if you use the term so broadly
Yes, and that's why great care and respect should be applied to how the government uses the tax money which they have raised from oppression.
Paying somebody to work for free for a giant corporation is not a justified use of that money. Those corporations should pay for their labour themselves.
I can't think of any worse oppression than taxes, bare forced labour. When it's done to pay for an army to defend ourselves against enemies, for the justice system to protect all citizens, or for healthcare to save lives, then that's palatable. As well as for a myriad of other things. But to pay a programmer so that he can make server infrastructure so that Amazon doesn't have to pay him? That's not palatable.
Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean there isn't much good music coming out? Maybe the genres people are creating more of don't match your personal preference, or you aren't looking for it and are just relying on major media companies to show it to you, but ive never had more high quality music of more variety than ever before. Much of it is farther in the electronica genres that many people somehow still ignore the existence of but I h…
>Just on my youtube discovery feed right now I got multiple 1+ hour synthwave mixes, EBM/EDM, industrial bass, multiple forms of metal, filk, jungle and DnB, punk rock, old and new jazz styles, and more, 95% of which was made in the last 2 years. How is that proof of "good music"? That's just background noise.
From the post you replied to:
Maybe the genres people are creating more of don't match your personal preferenceRe: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source
#295A problem is that some Python library with a sole developer who is on the verge of halting maintenance needs your $1 way more than the Linux Foundation.
Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source
#296>it is not okay to consider that this labor fell from the sky and is a gift, and that the people/person behind are just doing it for their own enjoyments Yes it absolutely is. That is the exact social contract people 100% willingly enter by releasing something as Free and Open Source. They do give it as a gift, in exchange for maybe the tiny bit of niche recognition that comes with it, and often times out of simple g…
The problem is more so maintenance. The expectation of FOSS is that the users and maintainer work together to resolve bug fixes/features/security issues. However many companies will dump these issues to the maintainer and take it for granted when they are resolved. It's not a sustainable model, and will lead to burnout/unmaintained libraries. If the companies don't have the engineering resources/specialization to com…
The software can't have a price, but the service of maintaining it and adding someone's desired features can.
Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source
#297If you willingly choose to make source code publicly available under an open source license you can’t then act all shocked that people don’t have to pay you for using that code. If you wanted to be guaranteed an income whenever your code gets used, you should have chosen a different license.
And if you're ok with not getting paid but you are shocked that corporations take it and use it in a non-FOSS-compatible way (e.g. selling their version for money) you should have used GPL instead of MIT.
Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think that literally no one is motivated by making more money than the minimal amount they need to survive, how do you explain rich people who still work? UBI isn't a proposal to make salaries illegal, so the problem of "how do we financially motivate people to work" isn't going to change if people happen to get a subsistence wage without employment. The assumption that there's a binary of "people will either…
Seems like you are making same binary assumption that people either work or they don't. The important question is probably how well/hard do people work. Lower productivity means people that work produce less so prices rise. Many make mistake thinking only about having money, but forget the supply part of the equation. If productivity is lower, there are literally less things available to everyone . And these equation…
Most work is worthless for progress though.
No matter how many janitors, cooks, etc you have you'll never invent a rocket. Most hard working people are just doing societal plumbing not inventing. So losing a bunch of them won't impact the technological advancement of your society.
But, I still think there's a flawed premise here. Loosing a janitor to UBI means that they can occasionally help their friend with rocketry or some other pursuit they have interest in. Providing UBI means that geologists don't need to hoard data because they won't starve if they don't get a cut from it's usage. The people involved in technological break through are often doing it for self-interest or fame and don't stop once they've hit some financial breakpoint.
We're long past the point where we barely need anybody to work to actually feed/house everybody and at this point it's all gravy. For obvious reasons we couldn't feed/house everybody if they wanted to solely live in NYC but IIUC no UBI proposal is about that; UBI lets you live in below median-desired places without additional income.
Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
No the expectation of FOSS is that code is provided AS-IS with NO WARRANTY because that’s what it says in the license.
People's expectations are not constrained by the license. They are free to exercise a sense of entitlement beyond the terms of the contract and empirically they often do. The license does not prohibit them from engaging with the authors or maintainers for any reason whatsoever, including requesting free labor. You could perhaps add a clause in the license that restricts this behavior but then it would no longer be FO…
They are free to have a sense of entitlement or to try and engage with the project maintainers/owners but there is nothing that obligates them to reciprocate anything at all.
Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source
#300Git is already distributed. We don’t need a hub for it. Just stop using GitHub it is a Microsoft product.
Not sure how open source got bamboozled into paying rent to Microsoft of all companies.