> it's already impossible to find good music in a sea of slop. that's been the case for decades at this point

I’ve found some of my favourite music in the last decade, during a time in my life by which it’s generally considered that your tastes are set.

I dislike music elitism, and this piece has a lot of it. music is both art and entertainment

it's no secret that being an artist is a tough path with little chance of success

It doesn’t need to be said in the article, it’s obvious. EmDash is a term associated with slop.

how long should it take to gain your confidence? how did you arrive at your number?

the state of the art of software engineering is to use AI. it's just reality

how long? 10 years

try codex, it's really good and doesn't have the same limits issues

probably someone else would have made the movie instead. there is time value to money. money now is better than money in 5 years

no, I work on open source because I want it to be freely available to all, without conditions

I view it as a type of charity. I know not everybody can afford to use their time without compensation. that's ok!

but I will personally never charge, and I oppose this commercial mindset

But also does it even have to be a construed as charity? Why do we need to put it in economic terms? Why not just -- something you do because otherwise it wouldn't exist? And you want it to exist?

In any case, +1, I find these posts to be pretty tiresome, and honestly, at this point irritating. Open source is open source, it's code we build in the open, together. If you don't have the time or energy to contribute, please let other people take over. It's not open source if it feels like work you should be compensated for. In my opinion, you should save that mentality for your job.

I admire this mindset, and this is what I try and do as well with my projects.

But for larger projects, on which the giants rests, (I'm thinking cURL, ffmpeg etc.) it most likely stops becoming/feeling like charity. Especially, since a lot of people do not see it as charity, and thus tries to force the maintainer(s) to do even more unpaid work.

The onus is on the maintainer(s) to work on the project as much as they can and want to, if people are creeps who try to socially manipulate maintainers to do free work, I think we need mechanisms to help mitigate that. For example, I think maintainers should be encouraged to delete GH comments they find offensive or harassing. It's their domain, they should keep it in a way they find enjoyable.

But turning open source into a job? No thank you! Adding money to something, overwhelmingly almost always in my experience, makes it that much worse and stressful. Money is not the answer!

I think one has to go clear eyed into freely licensing one’s software. It’s hard to declare you’re giving up all rights and that the IP can be used in any way, only to later say “no not like that!”

If you want a cut of your licensee’s revenue then it’s ok to say so in your licensing terms.

This seems more about infrastructure than open source itself. It seems fair to let them pay for the additional unnecessary costs they create, especially when they can do better.

Q2 means important, but not urgent. these tasks need to be scheduled or they don't get done

Q1 is things that are both important and urgent

it's a system popularized by Dwight D. Eisenhower

this isn't like a Molly guard. this is like asking the toddler to be careful

it doesn't matter if prices are falling or rising, it only matters how the ROI of building compares to other investment opportunities

we can also make it cheaper to build. easing taxes on imported materials, bringing in more skilled labor, expediting permits, and even direct subsidies like tax breaks

> it doesn't matter if prices are falling or rising, it only matters how the ROI of building compares to other investment opportunities

Correct, which it basically doesn't in Austin, which is why construction is decelerating.

> we can also make it cheaper to build

Yep, this is the only structural solution. The "just add supply" runs into the problem of price equilibriums. The reality is the input costs of building housing basically guarantees that housing is hard-to-attain for any local market. We need to address the cost of inputs. Temporary reductions in price are temporary and the market will self-correct back to restrict supply (as we're seeing in Austin) until prices go back up to being hard-to-attain.

The problem is it can't drive prices below what the free market would dictate?

Talk about praising with faint damns.

No, the problem is that the free market in advanced economies appears to dictate a price point for housing that is unattainable for broad swaths of society.

Classic case of Baumol's disease, which is not solved by "well duh we just gotta build more." People will not "just build" enough to solve the problem because they won't "just build" beyond equilibrium (for long).

No, the problem is the government has artificially restricted housing supply and this has driven up prices. It's not a market failure, it's a government failure.

I think it's not helpful to talk of "government failure" as long as democratic principles are upheld.

You could call it "voter failure" instead. But I'd argue that many of those voters are just acting in their own best interest, because they already own a home and more construction/housing supply does not help them at all.

Some part you might be able to blame on the system, because I'm pretty confident that owners of at least one home are politically overrepresented literally everywhere (just look at home ownership percentages of politicians compared to citizens).

I personally think a lot of this is just the natural consequence of an aging population, where young-people-concerns are basically "underrepresented" by design.

Of course it's helpful, unless one has the ridiculous idea that democracies can't make mistakes.

Yes, voters are acting in their own interests, or at least what they perceive to be their interests at the time. This can lead to bad outcomes. It's why we have things like the Bill of Rights, which restricts what even a majority can impose.

The idea that voters are always right would also seem to eliminate the possibility of arguing for change. Voters are responsible for current policy therefore it must be right, so how could change be good?

> The idea that voters are always right would also seem to eliminate the possibility of arguing for change. Voters are responsible for current policy therefore it must be right, so how could change be good?

I'd argue the exact opposite. If voters are wrong, and cause bad outcomes, why would you blame "the government", when it's clearly voters being stupid? And I'm not arguing for "no change"-- the fix is to vote better next time. I think it is only fair to directly blame "the government" in a democracy if it either acts against its voters, or is otherwise incompetent, hypocritical or corrupt.

I'd argue that the largest "problems" government causes with housing are institutionalized NIMBYism and more generally policies to prop up housing values.

This happens (mostly) because (many) voters want it.

To fix this, we need more votes from people that suffer most (i.e. young voters, which notoriously don't) and more awareness/priority/empathy from all voters (ideally even the ones not directly affected).

I strongly dislike blanket blaming "the government" for issues like this, because I feel it kinda disenfranchises people.

I'd argue that any policy problem that wouldn't be solved via re-election is never really a "government problem", it's a "people problem" (voters being stupid) or an "incentives" problem ("vote cost" being compensated indirectly by political donations, media attention or similar).

IMO shaping public opinion is part of the government’s job description.