Earnestly, what's the concern here? People complain about open source being mostly beneficial to megacorps, if that's the main change (idk I haven't looked too closely) then that's pretty good, no?
They are claiming something is open-source when it isn’t. Regardless of whether you think the deviation from open-source is a good thing or not, you should still be in favour of honesty.
No, according to the commonly accepted definition of open-source.
Whenever anybody tries to claim that a non-commercial licenses is open-source, it always gets complaints that it is not open-source. This particular word hasn’t been watered down by misuse like so many others.
There is no commonly-accepted definition of open-source that allows commercial restrictions. You do not get to make up your own meaning for words that differs from how other people use it. Open-source does not have commercial restrictions by definition.
Where are you getting this compendium of commonly-accepted definitions?
Looking up open-source in the dictionary does include definitions that would allow for commercial restrictions, depending on how you define "free" (a matter that is most certainly up for debate).
"Open-source" isn't a term that emerged organically from conversations between people. It is a term that was very deliberately coined for a specific purpose, defined into existence by an authority. It's a term of art, and its exact definition is available here: https://opensource.org/osd
The term "open-source" exists for the purposes of a particular movement. If you are "for" the misuse and abuse of the term, you not only aren't part of that movement, but you are ignorant about it and fail to understand it— which means you frankly have no place speaking about the meanings of its terminology.
Unless this authority has some ownership over the term and can prevent its misuse (e.g. with lawsuits or similar), it is not actually the authority of the term, and people will continue to use it how they see fit.
Indeed, I am not part of a movement (nor would I want to be) which focuses more on what words are used rather than what actions are taken.
> people will continue to use it how they see fit.
People can also say 2+2=5, and they're wrong. And people will continue to call them out on it. And we will keep doing so, because stopping lets people move the Overton window and try to get away with even more.
There's no authority that will punish you for misusing legal terms of art, or engineering terms of art— in everyday speech like this discussion— either. The vibe this gives is frankly "I just learned trademark exists and I think I'm very smart now".
> people will continue to use it how they see fit.
And whenever they do so, this pointless argument will happen. Again, and again, and again. Because that’s not what the word means and your desired redefinition has been consistently and continuously rejected over and over again for decades.
What do you gain from misusing this term? The only thing it does is make you look dishonest and start arguments.
Prescriptivists about language always lose in the end. That is the only point I am making. Words mean what people use them for, not what you want them to mean.
I am not misusing the term, but people are, according to your standards. And it is easy for them to do so, because "open source" was poorly named to begin with.
Untargeted pay less than 90% of targeted ones generally. And there's not a lot of companies that can handle a 90% drop in revenue.
The real solution would be to make users pay for the content, but charging for something that users used to get for "free" is also essentially impossible.
It doesn't have to be untargeted. You know the type of content the website hosts, therefore, you know a lot about the type of visitors. You can then charge appropriately for advertising that is targeted at those visitors. Don't show diaper ads on a site called Jalopnik. Instead show ads for Armorall, jack stands, tools, etc. When you visit a media site specializing in content like real houswives or kardashians, don't show the previously suggested ads. Instead, show ads on inane fast fashion, beauty products, luxury items, etc.
Targeted ads are always dumb as they tend to push an item that you've looked into before purchasing, but never realize that item has been purchased and you are no longer interested. They never get that the person researched item but has not looked for some time for item. Let's now advertise accessories for that item. If it was a fridge, show stainless cleaning items, for dishwasher, show ads for different detergents or other kitchen related items. It's not hard. For whatever reasons, they can't do targeted well. Targeted doesn't work as advertised.
We’ve been talking about federated micropayment technologies for some two decades. I’d happily pay for content but I refuse to sign up for 30+ publisher websites. If I could opt to pay $.25 for some article without giving the site all my personal data or incurring a subscription I’d be all for it. As it is I either “steal” the content through an archiving site or simply leave the site. More and more it’s the latter. I’d also happily pay some monthly fee for unlimited content from a consortium of publishers rather than disable my ad blocker, and let them sort out how much each one gets based on my browsing habits. None of these seem like hard technical problems, it’s certainly not impossible. I think the days of believing content comes without any cost are long behind us.
> Untargeted pay less than 90% of targeted ones generally.
If targeted advertising, as a whole, is banned, you can be pretty damn sure the payout for untargeted will come up—not necessarily to match what targeted is now, but way more than that 10% figure.
Ad spend, in aggregate, doesn't change that much based on new "innovations" in advertising annoyance. If you've still got roughly the same amount of money being spent on untargeted ads, continent-wide, as you do now on targeted, they're going to pay out much closer to parity.
> Untargeted pay less than 90% of targeted ones generally.
This could well be true. Unless targeted ads are just flat out banned, at which point the profitability of untargeted ones will rise, as the air (user attention, available space in web pages) is no longer being sucked out of the room by targeted ones.
Also - if by untargeted you mean completely randomly chosen ones, there absolutely is a happy medium - choose them based on the content of the page (I'm browsing for baby wipes and formula? Show me ads for strollers and child car seats, and maybe earplugs and some gift ideas for infants, not for motor oil or landscaping or circular saws). I don't buy the excuse that they are so much less effective - especially if the personally targeted ones are out of the picture.
As a huge bonus, they are comparatively trivial to implement and would provide a way out of the current monopoly were only Google, Facebook and a handful of other "know" what to show you and everyone must make these few greedy incumbents even richer by advertising through them. This would also help fragment what information exists about your habits, so even actors determined to break the law would get less advantages by doing so.
The preponderance of dark UI/UX patterns in advertising and cookie consent pop-ups, as well as the grey-hat browser fingerprinting and DRM based tracking, unfortunately stand testament to exactly that.
Given that ~98% of Internet users couldn't even articulate what javascript does as part of their browsing experience, the exfiltration and reassembling of their PII via meta-data into sellable profiles for targeted auctions is completely beyond their capacity to comprehend or engage with. Thus consent is de facto ungrantable.
Disagree wrt practicing gratitude towards resources consumed and tools utilized. Maybe it doesn't degrade you if you don't but I think it gives a bit more perspective
I think we agree on this if you agree that practicing gratitude in life and directly practicing it on non-sentient objects are not the same thing. Going to church to pray, going to therapy, practicing mindfulness, etc. isn't the same thing as seeing each grape growing on a vine as an anthropomorphic object. Don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower.
Huh, didn't know there were enough people to perpetuate a model like that just for lost pets. I had thought of this a while back and figured that would be a no-go
I was thinking it might help if they opened up the premise a bit, just made it about collecting pictures of animals, maybe tagging them as being a stray or having a collar but being alone, that it might increase the engagement for something like this.
For sure, I saw where it was skipping and I wouldn't have been surprised if it were intentional, but good to disprove. Thanks for checking, have a good day
Most people are in survival mode, and it's a socially vulnerable thing to admit you don't like the work. It requires a level of safety, by being honest about it and supportive of others hopefully we can get to the point where we can collectively acknowledge them and maybe try to address them.
It's also just not fun to think about why life sucks, and it makes life a little harder to begin with I think. So it requires some tact. People bringing it up as a subjective and personal take that they just want to share, as opposed to an objective fact that needs to change, has made it easier for me to take others more seriously in this area.
Sorry you felt like the minority, hope you can get to/create an environment where you feel better understood.
Yes, I've been in a company that was being dismantled by private equity. People would act like everything was normal in meetings and then you'd hear reports about people crying in more one-on-one type situations. Certainly it tore me up to the point that when the layoff came, I was actually relieved.
I'm extremely introverted and have a hard time telling this sort of thing to anyone but my therapist, but I was under the impression that I'm a bit unusual. Obviously in this forum, I can speak my mind because of the relative anonymity.
I often wonder if people do in fact understand what is making them unhappy; it often seems so clear to me. For instance, working from home is so sought after, but for me it was a disaster; the thought of being chained to a desk in my house for the next few decades of worked seemed close to living in hell (or at least the office). As I said, I'm quite introverted, but that level of singular toil is incredibly unnatural to me; I don't understand how anyone can do it, and yet people would accuse me of being some sort of shill on this site for laying that out.
And so, I got an in person job at a company that makes a product that I think is useful. I would be laughed at if I said what I got paid or some of the old technologies we use, but you know what - I might actually be in the twenty percent these days. I've actually told people that my job is a source of pride and satisfaction for me. Now my biggest fear (it'll probably never go away) is that we lose relevance/customers and I'll have to find something else.
