> You again seem to be applying what I'm saying to what seems to be your experience with the American government
I am European with direct experience with around 20 governments of the union; I've never visited the USA
> I just don't see collaboration in the context of a public institution as somehow separate from person-to-person collaboration.
One involves politics, lawmaking, ministers, directors, budgets, projects and governments and... And one does not. Pretty huge difference.
> We simply can't rely on a VM hosted by a profit-focused company as the backbone for record-keeping in posterity.
I already suggested IPFS, and there are more solutions to distributed data than you'd like. Choosing government for your purposes is about the worst thing you could do, even the government rather uses Amazon. My current government exists mere 30 years and each switch was accompanied by literal record burning. The previous communist phase lasted 40 years, and the one before that 20 years.
> One of the first suggestions I had was the UN or IEEE.
Why not Wikipedia or similar? That's what I am suggesting, basically
> I am European with direct experience with around 20 governments of the union; I've never visited the USA
You've got me there. You just didn't correct my earlier assumption, so I carried on.
> One involves politics, lawmaking, ministers, directors, budgets, projects and governments and... And one does not. Pretty huge difference.
Every human organization involves politics. And every non-profit organization requires a budget. The rest of that jargon is only semantics unless you're actually opposed to structure.
> I already suggested IPFS, and there are more solutions to distributed data than you'd like. Choosing government for your purposes is about the worst thing you could do, even the government rather uses Amazon. My current government exists mere 30 years and each switch was accompanied by literal record burning. The previous communist phase lasted 40 years, and the one before that 20 years.
IPFS isn't an organization that can manage itself as a proxy for humanity's interests. (Also not sure why you're dictating what I'd "like" here)
Edited to add: Yes the government might employ external services for run-time business. [For the most part] governments don't often rely on one source for services like that because of the need for persistence. Governments are often rigorous and slow because of the need for surety. It sucks and I'd never want to work inside of it, but it works [and some people thrive in that environment].
Also added: Your government doesn't change that quickly. Your current administration does. That's the part that illustrates what I'm saying—the people can change dramatically while the system may not. It's a bug in some contexts, but a feature in others.
> Why not Wikipedia or similar? That's what I am suggesting, basically
Sure. That would be a good start. Wikipedia is young, however. There is merit in something lasting long enough to be considered old.
> Every human organization involves politics. And every non-profit organization requires a budget. The rest of that jargon is only semantics unless you're actually opposed to structure.
I think it's clear what kind of politics I mean and what kind of budgeting I mean. I am strongly (probably given the communist past of my homeland) opposed to any government having any part in it (since it is not absolutely necessary since no one will die), not against structure. Actually it should be decentralized alike Bitcoin.
> Also added: Your government doesn't change that quickly. Your current administration does. That's the part that illustrates what I'm saying—the people can change dramatically while the system may not. It's a bug in some contexts, but a feature in others.
Eh, no. I actually meant government, and that's the whole point. You're attributing stability to entities that don't have it. Last 100 (101 actually) years:
(and you could declare further changes as similarly significant, such as joining NATO, the European Union and then the Lisboa agreement, however these weren't actual changes of government but only de facto and partial so I don't list them)
> Sure. That would be a good start. Wikipedia is young, however. There is merit in something lasting long enough to be considered old.
Whole computing field is young ;-)
> (Also not sure why you're dictating what I'd "like" here)
Disregard that, it was an idiom from my native language meaning that there is really a lot of choice, so much that you might be overwhelmed (and hence dislike the large list of options)
> I think it's clear what kind of politics I mean and what kind of budgeting I mean. I am strongly (probably given the communist past of my homeland) opposed to any government having any part in it (since it is not absolutely necessary since no one will die), not against structure. Actually it should be decentralized alike Bitcoin.
It's really not clear.
> Eh, no. I actually meant government, and that's the whole point. You're attributing stability to entities that don't have it. Last 100 (101 actually) years:
> Disregard that, it was an idiom from my native language meaning that there is really a lot of choice, so much that you might be overwhelmed (and hence dislike the large list of options)
The meaning is consistent in English, it's just condescending. But I do appreciate your elaboration.
So, to be clear: I consider anything that involves government generally to be avoided, and government should be involved only in things where such overreaching involvement (and its morally/ethically unsound ways - personal freedom and privacy breaches, financing through taxes...) is absolutely necessary - e.g. the end (people not dying) justifies the means.
Code sharing is not that, and having such entity run it in a centralised way would defeat the point - such database of code absolutely should be distributed, potentially blockchain-like decentralised.
> The meaning is consistent in English, it's just condescending. But I do appreciate your elaboration.
It's not in Czech. It's something a teacher would say to a kid as a joke.
I am European with direct experience with around 20 governments of the union; I've never visited the USA
> I just don't see collaboration in the context of a public institution as somehow separate from person-to-person collaboration.
One involves politics, lawmaking, ministers, directors, budgets, projects and governments and... And one does not. Pretty huge difference.
> We simply can't rely on a VM hosted by a profit-focused company as the backbone for record-keeping in posterity.
I already suggested IPFS, and there are more solutions to distributed data than you'd like. Choosing government for your purposes is about the worst thing you could do, even the government rather uses Amazon. My current government exists mere 30 years and each switch was accompanied by literal record burning. The previous communist phase lasted 40 years, and the one before that 20 years.
> One of the first suggestions I had was the UN or IEEE.
Why not Wikipedia or similar? That's what I am suggesting, basically