That's because "olive oil" is not a monolithic substance, it is a category of substances. Extra light olive oil, which is clearer and lacking most of the flavour compounds and solids of extra virgin olive oil, is just fine for frying and sautéing.
there are a ton of forks of nethack, and basically the dev team seems to have disappeared, so I wouldn't consider it finished as much as "AWOL".
 ok, not really, the nethack4 faq mentions 'The development team who worked on versions 1 to 3 of NetHack (the DevTeam) are still working on it (although there was no real evidence of this until 2014), but they don't release their progress, meaning that the situation is effectively the same as if they'd been doing nothing.'
This is demonstrably false, and speaks of the "tyranny of averages". Yes, worldwide, huge reductions of poverty, largely in Asia, have let to increases. For the average middle class worker in the US, however, things have barely budged in decades. When you take into account growing inequality, and the fact that limited resources (like housing near city centers) will always go to the wealthiest, it's easy to argue the average middle class worker is substantially worse off.
> "it's easy to argue the average middle class worker is substantially worse off"
it's also easy to argue that the typical metrics used in this comparison are misleading.
A "typical middle class worker" in the early 1970s lived in a house that was built in the 1950s or earlier, around 1200 square feet, 1 bathroom, 2-3 bedrooms, without air conditioning or a washer/dryer, and had one vehicle available to the household . Nowadays, we consider that "the projects", undesirable housing for poor people, while the "middle class" live in considerably larger dwellings with more amenities.
The reason I mention this is that real wage / purchasing power comparisons almost universally use "average housing costs" as a significant part of the metric, and "average housing costs" are in no way measuring the same thing. (
It so happens that I live in my childhood home, which my parents purchased in 1975 for $32,500 -- about 3.1 times the national median household income. I purchased it from them in 2012 for $135,000, a mere 2.7 times the median income.)
If you actually compare the goods a median-wage worker can purchase today to the goods a median-wage worker could purchase in the 1970s, there are definitely some things we have a harder time affording (like routine health care), but with the majority of material goods, you can get much bigger/better/faster/higher quality stuff for the same portion of the budget . A modern middle class income gets you much better than 40-years-ago middle class living conditions.
But all that better stuff Americans can buy is largely due to bigger household incomes from women entering the workforce. Back in the fifties/sixties, a single working class income could support a family of 4-5, comfortably. That's laughable today.
If real waves dropped, you should be able to name a good or service (besides obsolete ones like land lines) which we consume less of today than in the past. In fact, most goods/services should satisfy this.
Yeah, but "forms other than money" mostly means healthcare, which has skyrocketed - despite the fact that other developed nations with longer live expectancies have much lower healthcare costs.
More importantly, though, the Fed graph you show is an average (the real hourly compensation one). With growing inequality, using the average hides the fact the improvement for the median worker is much lower.
Yeah, but "forms other than money" mostly means healthcare, which has skyrocketed - despite the fact that other developed nations with longer live expectancies have much lower healthcare costs.
If you feel consumers are overconsuming medicine and driving up the price, there are lots of great ways to fix that. The most effective is high deductibles (currently illegal).
I know you are aware that life expectancy is minimally related to health care consumption, so why do you bring it up?
If you have data showing that median real compensation per hour is lower, show it.
And again, since household income has not moved much (according to figures I cited), you still need to provide an explanation for why we don't seem to consume less. (Hint: the basket of goods in CPI changes and $1 of chained-CPI adjusted wages today buys more than $1 of chained CPI adjusted wages 30 years ago. I.e., CPI != inflation in the long run.)
I care little for how much X has compared to Y. I do not see any use for the comparison, other than for media headlines.
I'd say that singling out smartphones is disingenuous. The advancement of every industry has caused the lives of almost everyone to increase dramatically, the advancement has also created a lot of wealth, which is also the byproduct of an increase in industry.
I've yet to see anyone explain empirically why it's bad that x has more wealth than y. I'm open to being swayed by data.
But your logic suggests that racism is not the dictionary definition but it has to do who is in minority or who is in majority. That is wrong. The definition "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." Until you change it in the dictionary this will be the definition and it has nothing to do with who is in majority and your "social constructs".
"Racism, however, describes patterns of discrimination that are institutionalized as “normal” throughout an entire culture. It’s based on an ideological belief that one “race” is somehow better than another “race”. It’s not one person discriminating at this point, but a whole population operating in a social structure that actually makes it difficult for a person not to discriminate."
Racial slurs not backed by institutionalized racism are just laughable. For instance if someone called me "Cracker" I'd laugh about it since there isn't a huge past history of people lynching, raping, and harming my race while they chant "Cracker".
Funny that you never asked the other guys who did the exact same thing to me publicly to stop.
I like how HN just like Reddit is turning into a propaganda machine where you remind everybody who does not support your agenda to follow the rules while all the guys who support your agenda can happily do against the rules, regardless how big lies they are spreading.
Thanks for proving to me that you are no different, double standards for the win!
I guess I will just stick to commenting outside HN.
It's not only possible but certain that we don't chastise all violations of the HN guidelines equally, simply because we don't see them all. There are overwhelmingly too many comments for us to read. That doesn't matter in most cases, though, because commenters on HN are required to follow the guidelines even when others are not. Especially when others are not.
There's no agenda that I'm aware of, other than to have HN threads be civil and substantive.
It's not "a wash". Housing and education are dramatically more expensive than they were a few generations ago. Gone are the days of paying for your degree waiting tables with enough left over to put a down payment on a house. Now you can look forward to a mountain of debt for an education and mortgage that you might never pay off in your life time.
It might be "a wash". Housing and education are more expensive, but food and entertainment costs are way lower. The cost of most things inside your home, like appliances and televisions is cheaper. Tools, hardware, and common home repairs are also cheaper.
It's very hard to get an exact 1:1 ratio, as many of us spend hundreds of dollars on cell phones that didn't exist back then, or thousands on computers, but naming two economic things that have gotten more expensive doesn't invalidate the myriad of things that have gotten commensurately cheaper.
For the bottom 50% of earners, real wages are more or less the same now as they were in 1970. They went up for a bit from the 90s to 08, but they are back at 1970 levels now.
Because wages have recently fallen, people in this group feel very poor right now.
For the top 50% of earners (increasing the closer to the top you get), real wages have increased a lot since the 1970s.
Between 1940 and 1985, most people were able to save about 5% of their income. Between 1985 and 2012, this decreased to become negative (i.e. most people live on debt).
Medical care, education, and energy have increased in cost several times over since 1970, and these costs are not captured in the real wages I quoted. It may be these costs explain why people have a lower disposable income, demonstrated by decreased savings rate.
> Housing and education are more expensive, but food and entertainment costs are way lower.
While that's true, it's certainly not "a wash." Housing and education are probably people's two biggest lifetime expenses. Even if housing prices doubled and food prices were cut by two thirds, the outcome would be higher overall expenses.
Personally, rent in a small apartment is more than all my other expenses combined.
For that to be true I would have to lose something I already possessed.
It's important to recognize that software -- all software -- is subject to network effects. The more popular a piece of software is, the more work is likely to go into it, more features added etc. If your favourite MIT-licensed software gets forked by a proprietary company and the proprietary version eclipses the original in popularity, you are very likely to be deprived of future support. In a way, software is analogous to a river: it's important to preserve everybody's access not just to the part of the river they live near but also its entire length upstream and downstream.
The opposite has been the case, though, in practice: When using MIT-licensed software that's popular, proprietary software companies have been happy to contribute back upstream, because it reduces their maintenance requirements.
And since when does a for-pay piece of software eclipse the original free version in popularity? If it did happen, then I'd assert that the "proprietary company" must have done a lot of work to make that possible. In that unlikely case, they must have invested a nontrivial amount in the creation of a powerful tool, and they deserve the profits it generates.
A far more likely scenario is that a proprietary company forks an MIT-licensed project, does something creative with it, sells it to a few people, and then the open-source community would copy the cool features and add them to the MIT project. The actual code to a new feature is typically not as hard to create as the design of the feature, which has already been done by our hypothetical proprietary company. Then the company will need to innovate again to stay relevant, and the free project can copy those features as well.
A healthy ecosystem can include some companies that don't share. It's all part of the network effect. If you can cite any situation where a community surrounding a free software library or other product has been killed or even harmed by a piece of proprietary software that is based on the same code, then you might have a point, but I don't think it's happened.
It DOES happen that proprietary software runs circles around the equivalent free software (Adobe Photoshop, for instance), but that's not because the for-pay software is stealing free code. It's because when you have hundreds of full-time developers you can produce a lot more than the same number of people can do in their spare time. And when those full-time paid developers can contribute to open source (as is frequently the case with MIT/BSD licensed projects), those open source projects flourish as well. Again, see LLVM/Clang.
But all of the examples you cite (with the exception of Photoshop) are used by developers. The article was talking specifically about serving the interests of users of applications.
I actually think you chose a bad example with the Adobe suite. Not one of the creative apps runs on Linux, I need an internet connection to keep the DRM system happy, and I have no guarantee that I will be able to open a PSD/AI/etc that I created 10 years ago on an older version of the software - a major concern for a serious amateur.
>I actually think you chose a bad example with the Adobe suite.
It's actually a perfect example:
* Any DRM it has obviously is annoying and could prevent you from using a valid copy (though I've never seen it not work).
* It's crazy expensive.
* Its UI is annoying.
And yet it's by far the most used piece of software when it comes to editing photos (with the possible exception of Adobe Lightroom).
FWIW, PSD is a pretty well standardized file format, and files created in older versions of PhotoShop have always reliably worked in newer versions of the app. It's the other way around, especially if you're using transformations that don't exist in the older app, where you most frequently encounter problems. Which means that if you don't pay their ongoing extortion fees, you might end up getting a PSD that you can't open because of some new feature the older app doesn't support.
Yes it's annoying. But it's also hands down the best, and no professional graphic artist would be taken seriously without it. Gimp doesn't even come close in functionality -- but even worse, the various tutorials and scripts you can follow or acquire for PhotoShop don't work in Gimp.
>The article was talking specifically about serving the interests of users of applications.
Sure it was, but in my example I point out one of many apps that is vastly superior to its open source equivalents, and yet it is the one that serves users the best. Yes Adobe extorts money from those users. Yes it would be nice if it were just open and free. But the reason that Adobe can make software that is so much better is that it can extort that money from users.
So what good is the GPL in fighting apps like this? It accomplishes nothing with respect to large companies like Adobe, because they can just pay to reimplement what they need.
The argument is that the GPL will allow better software to be written with capital-f-Freedom than proprietary. That the GPLed libraries will grow in quantity and eventually outcompete proprietary tools. Other than developer tools (and precious few of those even qualify, honestly), name a GPL application that's better than its closed source rivals. Write a list of all of them that you can think of, in fact. If you hit a half dozen, I'd be surprised -- and there are dozens if not hundreds of solid proprietary packages that make the open source packages look embarrassingly bad by comparison.
Yes you can find GPL apps that are Good Enough for some purposes. I do know people who use and swear by Gimp, for example, or Inkscape. But except for people who use Free tools for philosophical (or financial) reasons, the vast majority of end users want the mainstream, proprietary software that for the most part works the way they expect.
Users are being better served by apps that work well and have the features they need. It happens those apps typically are proprietary. Some philosophies sound good on paper, but in reality fall apart. The GPL largely falls into that trap, IMO, except for the awesome developer tools that are available for free. And Firefox. I still like Firefox. :)
I'm sorry but PS is not vastly superior to Gimp; it's largely equivalent. PS has tools that Gimp doesn't have and Gimp has tool that PS doesn't have. Given the choice, I use Gimp over PS because of the reasons I mentioned in my previous post, and also because I find its UI to be much less obtrusive, and because I can't find equivalent tools in PS for the work I do.
I deliberately avoided comparing the 2 apps in terms of features in my last post to avoid the tit for tat that will inevitably follow.
PS is required by professionals because it is the de facto standard image editing tool and it's the one graphic designers learnt to use in school, and because once you've bought a copy you're locked in. Frankly, if XCF was the industry file format and Gimp was taught in school, Gimp would be the tool everyone uses.
I've used both, and Gimp falls flat in the implementation of the features that it does have. It's not about filling in boxes in a feature comparison table. It's about how well each key feature works. 
And that's where most open source software completely falls down, because getting UI and polish into an app takes tons of time and experimentation to get right. Open source apps typically get to 80% and leave it there. Problem is, the last 20% of UI and feature improvement typically requires 80% of the time.
But even that is irrelevant, as you point out, because PS is the de facto standard, and Gimp can't open a multi-layer PSD and be expected to render it perfectly if it uses any nontrivial effects.
 Gimp seems to still be missing "adjustment layers," which I swear are used in 95% of the nontrivial tutorials I've seen for PhotoShop. I'm sure you can work around that, but that is a key feature of PhotoShop. Just because you don't find a feature important doesn't mean it isn't used by 90% of graphic professionals who use PhotoShop.
I've used both, and Gimp falls flat in the implementation
of the features that it does have.
I've also used both, regularly and for many years, and my experience is the opposite. As I keep saying, Gimp's UI and portability is what makes me keep using Gimp despite also having Adobe CC installed on my workstation.
And that's where most open source software completely
falls down, because getting UI and polish into an app
takes tons of time and experimentation to get right.
I could just as easily say that this is where proprietary software falls down because software vendors sell their wares on features, not polish. As a professional software engineer, I know this first hand. PS continues to get feature after feature but its basic rectangle select tool is still a complete pain to use. Last time I checked, the Gimp team flat out refused to add support for 3D rendering. It took them along time to come round to the idea of adding vectors.
Actually, if you look at Gimp's development history, you will find that their approach for a long time now has been to work very hard on making the features they deliver as powerful and usable as possible.
This is partly why features are added so slowly. The other reason is because the development team are a handful of people who work on the tool in their spare time.
Yet despite this, they have built an excellent image manipulation tool in Gimp itself, they've developed the GTK+ UI toolkit that is the backbone of the excellent Gnome and XFCE desktop environments and countless applications. They've also developed the excellent GEGL library, the non-destructive rendering engine built precisely to enable adjustment layers (or their equivalent) in Gimp that you can't live without, which in the meantime has enabled the rapid development of Darktable, a very capable alternative to Lightroom.
In a futile attempt to keep this conversation on topic, I'll just point out that both GEGL and GTK are licensed under the LGPL, while Gimp and Darktable are both licensed under the GPL.
Just because you don't find a feature important...
That's got nothing to do with it. I started working with Gimp because it was the only tool that ran on Linux that was capable enough to do what I required.
A user of a tool like Gimp or Photoshop makes the application work for him. Before adjustment layers existed, Photoshop users duplicated layers and blended them with the original to get the flexibility they required. I do the same in Gimp. As Gimp introduces more powerful features, I will take advantage of them.
10,000 years between stars is a long time to be playing solitaire.
That's assuming our space ships resemble a Saturn V or the Space Shuttle. Why limit ourselves to that? How about a colony ship the size of New York City, built in orbit, housing millions of people? At that point we don't even need to live thousands of years; we'd have a generational ship.
No, the problem here is that elected officials are given access to the pension fund to begin with. If the pension were set up independently and the government simply handed over their bargained-for monthly contribution to the independent fund then we wouldn't have the issue of politicians running populist "loot the pension fund" campaigns.
Correct, but that is the only way taxpayer funded pensions can be sold. The reason that non government pensions are so expensive and are basically extinct is that there are strict laws setup to guarantee pension funds are adequately funded and the pensioners aren't left to fend for themselves.
These laws don't exist for taxpayer funded pensions, so politicians and union leaders can do what they see fit, and the best answer I've gotten for why there are no rules for government funded pensions is that governments have the power to tax.
If defined benefit pensions, aka life annuities, were handed off to an entity that didn't have the power to tax, I'd be interested to know at what cost it would have. I suspect most companies wouldn't even offer the kind of guarantees offered by government funded pensions.
That's more or less how, e.g., Chicago funds its pensions: http://www.wbez.org/news/experts-say-chicago-has-public-pens.... Every year, they put in a fixed multiple of what employees paid in two years' prior. The city skipped a number of payments in the 1990's because the funds were projected be overfunded, but I've never seen an account of these "loot the pension fund" measures you're talking about.