Existing independent organisations is probably the only realistic one of these. Creating an actually competent news agency build from scratch takes a lot of work resources, making it dependent on the fediverse seems like an arbitrary limitation.

But freelancers and existing networks starting to work with the fediverse because our ideals match, that could definitely happen.

Either that or its jealousy.

Imagine getting upset because, fictional character in video game has a less restrictive personal gender expression then you deem acceptable.

We have a near infinite of games that revolve around committing violence an murder. But oh lord please heed us from these satanic developers expressing themselves trough their own artistic work.

I once wrote down a food recept in code style because it seemed like the most structured way to do so.

“If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life’s exciting variety, not something to fear.”

• Gene Roddenberry

The code to handle errors would be so bloated to deal with every conceivable and inconceivable situation you will get errors on your errors.

The computer is as helpful as it can be with what little context it knows of what was going on. Mostly it just knows that codeline 123 went fine and 124 went not.

This isn’t even fucking with them, it directs them to provide an actual proper answer.

They hope to learn it to be a better fascist because for some reason trying to make ai smarter has the “sideeffect” of it agreeing with altruistic and woke ideas.

Use it upside down for a while? May need some time though.

He was the perfect actor for the job i can’t believe how the producers shot themselves in the foot like that.

That is the world we live in, sure capitalism is dominant but you can’t simply dismiss open technology movement as non existent just because you aren’t aware of them.

Have a few:

Free beer, https://freebeer.org/blog/

Open bikes, https://openbike.cc/download/

Open source ecology, https://www.opensourceecology.org/

Wikihouse, https://www.wikihouse.cc/

“Volvo has a history with the modern three-point safety belt, which was perfected by in-house engineer Nils Bohlin in 1959 before the patent was shared with the world.”

This story is a famous example of seemingly putting human safety before personal profit.

In a direct comparison this innovation on it is worse because it lacks the defining feature that makes it truly applaudable.

The original 3 point seatbelt patent would also expire after 20 years but they (presumably) saw the amount of people they could save and chose not to wait.

Though you might have reasonable argument on corporate motivation that is commonly accepted i personally am in very strong disagreement with the notion that profit incentives are anything but harmful.

In my own reasoning and experience i found that a desire for profit or personal success sabotage the effective value of any potential invention.

The objective value of a product that i attempt to perceive is directly correlated to how many living beings can successfully use it without losing value in return.

For example the most advanced designer cars that exist that can only the super rich can buy… those are complete worthless junk and leaching valuable assets and energy from our planet trown in the proverbial bin.

A text file that explains in detail how to fix and maintain a generic bike written by some passionate nerd and freely available online has in comparison uncountable value.

Chances are a for profit product is also build needlessly complex just to stifle future competition (Apple likes that one also) or intentionally flawed so a new later patent can save the day and sustain the practical monopoly on it. If you look around you see this everywhere.

I see the same trends in digital development. Closed source only exist to exploit people who have not learned how to property own and maintain a computer and to block off ways open source devs could use to innovate for the benefit of everyone.

This is why i prefer the proprietary systems not exist at all. So someone else can invent it instead. In theory all knowledge is out there and so are all inventions, to be discovered and shared for enrichment of the species as a whole.

If you ask me, if the benefit of everyone including yourself is not enough motivation to build something better then what already is. I don’t want you on my team.

If your motivation requires a self serving result, i would prefer if society paid you to STAY AWAY from any important work decisions because the losses are too great to give that power to what subjectivity understand as a mental illness.

If everyone benefits, i benefit. If no one suffers, i don’t suffer. You can keep the ego happy and still arrive to the same conclusion, i am award this is considered an extreme stance but i will die on this hill unless someone can point me to a higher one,

Someone remind me to adjust my opinion of volvo when they also release this tech pattern to the world for free.

I do not care how safe your system is in theory, if you are gatekeeping it so others can’t replicate it its more dangerous to the world then if it didn’t exist at all, which at least allows the chance of someone with ethics to still invent and share it.

“I know what i asked”

Username checks out.

Zombies are getting to be parents now?

Woke has gone too far, in my day they would have gotten a bullet between the eyes.

Tbf, there probably is a high correlation between those.

Stahp, my games already perform better on linux with wine then they did on windows at this rate…

Actually please keep going !!!

Not to disagree on the topic but “if you can’t finnish it, don’t start it” is absolutely horrible advice when its about a creative art like writing.

If i am not wrong there is a whole writing style about just starting without knowing yourself where its going to end.

I highly dislike capitalism but i can see that once you have enough material to sell some of it, even if incomplete as a series. Many people would take the opportunity. I don’t know the authors economic background but for a starving artist with high potential that first book sales could be the push required to finish a series.

I blame capitalism, both for putting artists in this position and for the disrespect of big media towards their own content quality. Its always the money must flow, at every cost!

In my experience the suppressing of the impulsive parts of my brain also suppressed my natural curiosity.

I can agree on being more alert but i feel the stay interested is assumption.