Once you’re acquired you have to do what the boss says. That means prioritizing your work to benefit the company. That is often not compatible with true open source.
How frequently do acquired projects seriously maintain their independence? That is rare. They may have more resources but they also have obligations.
And this doesn’t even touch on the whole commodification and box out strategy that so many tech giants have employed.
> Once you’re acquired you have to do what the boss says.
Or quit, and take the (Open Source) project and community with you. Companies sometimes discover this the hard way; see, for instance, the story of how Hudson became Jenkins.
If AI tools are as good as the CEOs claim, we should have no friction towards building multiple open source alternatives very quickly. Unless of course, they aren’t as good as they are being sold as, in which case, we have nothing to worry about.
> Swarmer’s revenue for the year to December fell to just under $310,000 from $330,000 a year before. Net losses widened to $8.5mn from $2.1mn over the same period.
Our rent has been ~$300 more than it should be for 5 years. Across just the 2 communities we've lived in since the pandemic started (around 260 units total), that's already about $6 million in extra revenue for our landlords.
What is this even. I'm having a hard time processing the amount of corruption that must be involved to come to this outcome with such an open-and-shut situation. I'm sure that what they were looking at was such an exceptional level of fraud that the companies involved couldn't survive a just outcome. So... dissolve them and pass the rights to the property to the victims (the tenants).
There are not 8 major versions between iOS 18 and iOS 26. Apple skipped the monotonously increasing version numbering system since iOS 1 during WDDC 2025 to adopt a year suffix based versioning system.
Edit: Oop, I misread! Right, yes, the change up was arguably not entirely boring. Some people were excited at least.
Originally: To be the annoying pedant, version numbers did still monotonically increase, even with the gap, because each version is >= to the last. The mono means a single direction, not a step size of one.
Well all the assets are with the old asses so the only thing left for the younger gens is creativity and humor. I’d make you eat a sloppy toppy burger too you little burger slut boomer bitch <3
This is clever but it’s self defeating because it’s tasteful. It’s a good joke. I felt like John Waters was saying it to me. And the painful thing to me is the tastelessness.
This seems like a very easy problem. The government has birth records, passports, ssn, phone records, etc. so they could provide an age bracket to anybody that needs it. But instead a private corporation will get to do this and create an absolute mess à la Palantir.
That requires a high level of trust in your current government and whomever is in charge in the future.
Its worth remembering how the Nazis so efficiently found Jews in the Netherlands. The Dutch government kept meticulous records, including things like your name, address, and religious affiliation. That wasn't a big deal until the Nazis rolled in, throw in some level of Nazi sympathizers in the Dutch government and it wasn't hard for them to track down anyone they wanted to find.
Sure, there's a good reason to avoid centralizing data in general but in this case we're talking about governments. Governments are particularly dangerous for mass data collection because they also come with the authority, and military, of a state.
And with the money (or else: the authority) to get the data from private businesses. So they get the full data without any restrictions that they themselves would face.
Based on your other comments, I’m curious what your solution is?
The government needs our records to collect taxes. So at the minimum the government must have some information. We can argue over the mechanism and trust factor but that’s not the core issue here.
The private companies doing this is the core problem. This is a service that the government could provide for free with the most safeguards.
Or perhaps you have some other proposal? And I’m not interested in the no government anarchy you propose elsewhere.
> That requires a high level of trust in your current government and whomever is in charge in the future.
Some entity has to be trusted with our data anyway, at least government supposed to have some accountability before the citizens, corporations have much higher incentives for profit.
Why is it a given that we need to trust an entity with our data? Most of human history got by without data collection, centralized or otherwise, there's no innate law of nature requiring it
It doesn't require only trusting the government (or another corporation) today, it requires trusting all future iterations of them as well. It may be a different story if the data was periodically purged, say after each administration for example.
There are still a lot of underlying assumptions here worth noting though. You're assuming we must have a government and what it must be able to do, like charge me taxes or gatekeep certain activities behind licensing systems.
I'm not arguing we don't need a government. But to silently take for granted that everything from income taxes to public roads and travel restrictions are a given jumps ahead here.
We could decide, for example, that the government shouldn't be allowed to centralize certain data and remove some of what we expect them to do instead.
> We could decide, for example, that the government shouldn't be allowed to centralize certain data and remove some of what we expect them to do instead.
How exactly government manages our data is a valid concern and in the modern world this needs to be reevaluated.
reply