Exactly, they're just posting code, but, simultaneously, if they put it in the public domain, they probably expect that the code will be used by others and from that moment, well, they are at least responsible for replying to PRs or close the ones they don't care about merging.
Once it's public and gains "customers" the responsibility grows a bit, otherwise don't post it at all publicly, after all, if you're not going to care about real world use cases, it's just as valuable as any toy project that hasn't seen the light of day.
This type of almost "passive gatekeeping" is the reason why we've formed several OSS projects we rely on. Yes, we incur maintenance burden but the predictibility gained is Invaluable.
Social and cultural benefits are entirely subjective and difficult to see how any large group of people would agree on what constitutes such benefits. I don’t think many people would be okay with subsiding the supposed benefits that theologists percisely because they disagree about the benefits. Economic benefits are much more likely to be widely accepted and understood.
That's stupidly wrong. I am not saying that this is the case here, but when Hitler wrote about the Jews, if people were annoyed (to the point of attempted murder) about it, it does not mean he had "some fundamental truth" in it.
> I am not saying that this is the case here, but when Hitler wrote about the Jews,
Afaik, Hitler wasn't attacked for what he wrote, per se.
I'm not sure this invalidates the point.
These people that attack authors must have been disturbed enough, by being exposed to concepts they find distasteful, that they lash out. They attempt to transfer their inability to cope, with what they imagine the book will do to others, to the author in a misguided attempt to diminish their own pain and/or to gain notoriety for doing so, on other people's behalf.
Before your dive headfirst into proving Godwin's Law, will you catch yourself up and pick up on some subtlety.
Nobody cared too much what
Hitler wrote, when he wrote it, he was just another right wing crank writing hateful stuff. His actions, rather than his writing are what he's judged on mostly.
Rushdie fundamental truth was that it was alright to write about a religious figure in a work of fiction, and that's why he has every intolerant nutcase looking to do him harm for a few decades.
In the most general form, ideologies which include an orthodoxy-heresy dichotomy in assemblage out-compete those which don't. The development of orthodoxy itself was a quantum leap in the progression of human thought, and it contributed to both the spread of early Christianity as well as the hatred toward it in (late)-antiquity as its adherents were perceived to be annoyingly self-righteous.
Orthodoxy-containing ideologies characteristically participate in a hegemonic form reality building. But, basing ethical judgements about a particular ideology singularly on whether or not it contains an orthodoxy-heresy component is a poor measure. There are better arguments than, "I'm against the orthodoxy" or "this person is a heretic."
Instead, I maintain that ethical judgements of ideologies should be based on their material outcomes, though this often overlaps with judgements involving the grounding of what makes someone an adherent or heretic, the material benefits granted to adherents of the orthodoxy, and punishments to which heretics are subjected.
IIRC, as an example, Newsweek lost its trusted status as it adopted a news tabloid format. Further, they no longer have fact checkers and do not print corrections. Surely that's a disqualification right there.
I wish those people over 40 hadn't put a US government in place that abolished the fairness doctrine. Then our news sources would probably not be so bananas.
> IRC, as an example, Newsweek lost its trusted status
Precisely, it lost its trusted status, but the GP posts that WP trusts publications that have gone bananas. So your example speaks in favor of Wikipedia's reliability.
You clearly don't edit much of Wikipedia if you think that. Their bias actually toward things that are in the news.
And since the news of today is only interested in the most extreme, that's the facts you'll find on Wikipedia.
Truthfully a much worse problem is that an average user cannot edit on Wikipedia. To edit on Wikipedia you need to have an obsessive personality, to constantly guard your edits and keep other editors from removing them.
And that bias is much worse than any other, you'll find a ton of information on matters that attract obsessive personalities, and much less on more normal subjects.
> Truthfully a much worse problem is that an average user cannot edit on Wikipedia. To edit on Wikipedia you need to have an obsessive personality, to constantly guard your edits and keep other editors from removing them.
This reads like something coming from the obsessive side.
If it's true there's probably a less controversial source that reported on it. If a controversial source is the only place to report on something, it's probably not true.
Yes, the supreme court decided that the rights of women were up for democratic election. That's fucking great when you have an anti-women's rights party.
