In my opinion (which might be wrong) your duty as a parent is to equip your kid with the tools it needs to be able to face the challenges life throws at him/her.
What would make your kid _happy_ would be to play all day and do nothing about their future (I'm yet to see a kid who would rather study than play).
Wanting your kid to be _happy_ means you need to prepare him/her to be _successful_ (aka to be able to face the challenges life throws at him/her) which might not be _fun_ in the short term. As the OP mentions, striking a balance is a tricky part.
Probably a more accurate statement would be: "So they got scared and jumped the gun and in so doing risked ruining someones life in an attempt to protect the Scala community."
Does anyone ever recover fully from years of income loss? "Time in the market beats timing the market" and time is our most precious resource. It doesn't sound like this settlement (based on the attached court order) makes him whole financially in any way from the impact.
He probably meant text. Which is what I had in mind when I asked the question too. Text is way cheaper than audio and you can opt in audio after an text ice breaker.
So you're saying if you try to build a product, fail and want to acquire that product from another company - now that you have 0 competition with that product - that should somehow be illegal? Why exactly?
Also what product did Adobe had that was in direct competition with Figma?
It's hilarious that you would attribute that to capitalism when the Fossil Fuel and Gas industry was one of the most subsidised industries over the last 100 years. Capitalism is against government helping any kind of company :)
> I can't think of many industries that didn't see direct help from the government in one way or another.
That might be a necessary evil but has nothing to do with Capitalism. Throughout the time we've seen different degrees of government involvement in the market. Capitalism claims the less government involvement, the better. There can be a discussion if a purely Capitalistic market (0 government involvement) can exist but claiming government helped industries are the result of capitalism is just wrong.
Capitalism is financial democracy. The market (aka the people) vote with their money. If a company goes down, that's ok, another one will replace it if it was a company that produced a necessary product. The Government getting involved in this process is very anti-capitalistic. Takes away the freedom of people to vote with their money and instead incentivizes companies to ignore the people and just lobby and play the system that the government put in place. So calling that Capitalism when it's the very thing Capitalism tries to avoid is an anti-truth.
You do realize that governments created both markets and capitalism right? Markets are older than capitalism and have been tools for governments to provision themselves. In fact, anthropologists couldn't find a society that voluntarily chose markets. Markets are a product of conquest. Capitalism is a product of the feudal system collapsing. Capitalism cannot exist without a strong government because it requires markets, a legal framework that allows you to own property, and a working financial system.
I don't know exactly how you define markets or capitalism but I'm pretty sure when small tribes meet and exchanged merchandise (money was not even a thing then) that's a text book definition of a market. And a Capitalist market at that, 0 government involvement. The person who had the best cows was getting all his/her's cows sold while the person who's cows were not taken care of was run out of business. That's Capitalism in it's essence. That's long before even the concept of a country existed.
Have you talked to actual capitalists? Like, people who actually own capital? They don't want handouts to their competitors, but want them for themselves. If you own a business, of course you want government subsidies.
But wait, you are probably talking about market purists. Those don't really exist in the business world.
I mean, it would be stupid if the government involved itself into the market to not take advantage of that. What exactly are you proposing? That a company would want the competitors to get handouts and not want them for themselves? That's dumb. So of course if you take it as a given that the government will manipulate the market, companies would want to take advantage of that to get a leg up.
Companies that are market purists don't exist? Any company that outperforms their competitors wants the government to stay out of it. Any company that's behind will want the government to step in so they can take advantage of that and not get run out of business.
This is the same argument that communists use all the time
"Socialism/Communism is great and we should all live under that system as it is self-evidently the best"
"Well, there were some pretty bad aspects of the USSR and communist China, maybe we should take heed of those."
"Actually, I now choose to define communism as a perfect, not-yet-realised ideal. Any criticism you have of the closest existing system is actually a criticism of State Capitalism and not applicable to real communism."
---
"Capitalism is great and we should all live under that system as it is self-evidently the best"
"Well, there are some pretty bad aspects of the capitalist systems, maybe we should take heed of those."
"Actually, I now choose to define capitalism as a perfect, not-yet-realised ideal. Any criticism you have of the closest existing system is actually a criticism of Corporatism and not applicable to real capitalism."
Fair point. That might be the case... I fail to see how Capitalism inevitably requires Big Government in the same way that Communism inevitably requires centralized power but it might be my problem and you might be right. I'll have to spend more time thinking about it.
I always thought about it as an indirect connection. Capitalism -> Economic Prosperity -> People become more socialist -> Big Government that undermines Capitalism. But that might be wrong. Have to think about it some more.
To me this sounds weird. I'm from Eastern Europe, no strong unions there by the way so it must be a West/North Europe kind of thing. I understand unions fighting for people who joined a union. But if I purposefully don't join a union cause I don't believe unions are good for the industry (I don't, but this is a hypothetical) why does the union have the power to create a "collective agreement" that affects me? Who gave them that right? I definitely didn't.
Actually because of unions in Germany (where I currently work) it's really really hard to get a raise even if you're a top performer. Say I am 2x faster than anyone in my factory. I cannot go to my employer and ask for a raise. They will say: "Well, this is already discussed with unions. You're in the company for X years, this is your salary range. Work extra hours if you want more money". So all I can do is not work 2x as fast as everyone... waste time, and do extra hours so I can earn more. Waste of time. Without an union I could have negotiated my own salary based on my own merits and earn the same money I earn with the extra time in normal time cause I am efficient.
So unions are not some holy grail. They come with drawbacks. And I find it wrong that a union I am purposefully not part of decides my salary. That makes no sense to me.
That's fine. I can negotiate my own breaks and days of work. Maybe I need 1 break and I want to work the full week cause I need the money. If I want what the union is offering, I can always join the union, then I get the union "package". But if I don't, then leave me alone. I am a grown human, I can negotiate my own package.
How would it work if it wouldn't? He explains what he means by that. If you spend time and resources on all things the users require and your run out of money and go out of business, everybody loses.
Of course you can take any of the "rules" and take them to an extreme where they become wrong. But I think if you don't push them to their breaking point they are good rules of thumb :)
> How would it work if it wouldn't? He explains what he means by that. If you spend time and resources on all things the users require and your run out of money and go out of business, everybody loses.
I think there is also a bit of a conflation of values vs ability. The formulas in the article represent values. Real life adds constraints based on what's possible.
Consider his formula for dev vs user: "user > dev". You could argue that, just as a business is constrained by time and money, so is the developer constrained by time and skills. And yet, the author is happy with turning the greater than sign towards the user in this formula. Why?
It's the same thing. If you bias your time and resources towards the things the dev require and/or would like and nobody actually wants to use the resultant software, you equally crash and burn and everyone loses.
I wanted to say exactly this (the first part, I don't care enough about Stallman to have any kind of opinion about him). In plenty of countries in the world (including UK) the age of consent in 16 (which personally I find problematic but there's nothing I can do about it). So the objection Stallman raised is not irrational. Not only was it not "forcing someone to have sex against their will" but if it happened in a different country it would have been completely legal. Of course it did not happen in another country, it happened in a country where it was illegal, so it should be investigated and prosecuted but as sleeping with an underage person not as rape.
Just because you can marry a child in some parts of the world doesn't mean I'm not gonna consider sex with a 12 years old anything but rape just because it doesn't break local law.
Doesn't this contradict your previous statement where you defined rape as "forcing someone to have sex against their will"?
Is having sex with a 12 years old despicable and morally unexcusable? Yes. Is it rape? Unless you're willing to say a 12 years old doesn't have a will at all, calling it rape contradicts your own definition.
What would make your kid _happy_ would be to play all day and do nothing about their future (I'm yet to see a kid who would rather study than play).
Wanting your kid to be _happy_ means you need to prepare him/her to be _successful_ (aka to be able to face the challenges life throws at him/her) which might not be _fun_ in the short term. As the OP mentions, striking a balance is a tricky part.