In almost instances of Linus going off on one in public it is because maintainers weren't doing their jobs (to act as quality gatekeepers), or particular developers thinking they could steam roll road changes through if they kept submitting them, or not listening to what Linus was saying. I remember Linus used to ream out Hans Reiser a lot (the guy who was subsequently imprisoned for murdering his wife) because he constantly tried to get ReiserFS into the kernel despite serious issues Linus had with it.
So generally when you see a rant, there is a history behind it and the rant itself is directed with a point. I also think it's self evident that the kernel has benefited from this "benevolent dictator" model. I'm sure some people have gotten all precious over their feelings being hurt. The rest raised their game and the result has been a code quality standard you'll probably never see anywhere else.
His style of being direct, having a high quality threshold and calling out bullshit immediately and bluntly is why the Linux kernel went from a university project to powering everything from lightbulbs to super computers. I think it kind of ridiculous that this demonstrably effective style got framed as "toxic" just because he hurt a few people's fee-fees.
A lot of subjectivity about what is a success or not, but I would say many nationalised companies (and most were only nationalised for 20-30 years) were absolutely stagnating and/or suffering from widespread union disruption and should have been cut loose. But just picking out a handful of privatisations that went well, I think British Telecom, British Gas & British Airways did much better as privatized companies. Some privatisations went not-so-well - look at steel or coal privatisations or British Rail.
And an example of successful nationalisation - hospitals & doctors were a loose arrangement of private / charitable causes before being nationalised as the NHS. I think we can agree the situation is far better for everyone as a public health service than if it were run for-profit.
I never said anything about copyright giving you right to copy movies. But if I own a CD, blu-ray or a book, I physically OWN that blu-ray or book. I can stick it on a shelf, lend it to someone, give it away, burn it, sell it on e-bay. It doesn't entitle me to duplicate it, but the media is mine, as is my right of ownership in law.
Conversely if I buy a digital movie on Amazon (or any other provider) I've bought a license to it. Next time I go view it, the movie might have gone. Or maybe Amazon just shitcans the entire service (as it has before). Or maybe they just decide to ban my account for whatever reason. Or maybe they don't like that I've moved to another continent. Whatever the reason I have no recourse. Nor can I sell my license, lend it, or anything else.
That's the problem I'm talking about. There is no reason that when I buy a movie from Amazon or another provider it has to be this way. Instead I should buy the movie, and have a copy of movie and a token that shows my ownership of it. They can watermark the mkv to bind it to the token and me and copyright holders might come after me if I unlawfully share the file. But I should be able to sell my copy if I want. I should be able to borrow a copy from a digital library. I should be able to do things equivalent to a physical copy.
Acupuncture is quackery too. At the very least it should not be part of any public health service, or insurance policy, and people gullible enough to go for it should have to pay out of their own pocket.
Chiropractors and osteopaths only exist in such large numbers because they bill less to insurers than actual doctors & hospitals. So of course insurers are going to promote these quacks because it's cheaper than somebody going to an actual physiotherapist for treatment.
There should really be legislation that requires insurers to cover science & evidence based treatments. If someone wants woo it should be at additional expense to them, not part of a standard policy.
People are buying something - a revocable license to view content through the service. Look at the T&Cs of any of these services and it’ll say as much within that wall of text.
Hence why I advocate for digital property, a token of ownership and rights that go with it.
That may be but it's what these services are doing and will continue to do until lawmakers enact digital property laws along the lines that I suggest.
IMO textbooks, at least in schools should just be given away in electronic form. I live in Ireland where parents have to buy physical copies from a retailer and it's just stupid duplication of effort and a waste of money.
People are buying something - a revocable license to view content through the service. Look at the T&Cs of any of these services and it'll say as much within that wall of text.
Hence why I advocate for digital property, a token of ownership and rights that go with it.
I think streaming is fine - if a show is removed or the service dies you haven't lost content because you never owned any in the first place and never expected to.
I really don't know why anyone buys from the likes of Apple, Google, Amazon, Sony etc. People don't own the content, they own a license which lasts as long as the service or the rights to the content and then it's gone.
The problem here is people didn't buy content. They've bought a license to view content and somewhere in the smallprint is Sony's right to revoke the right whenever they like for whatever reason. Other services have done likewise, either withdrawing content or just failing altogether.
So first off, as a consumer stop buying DRM'd shit because it won't end well under any circumstances. Second, lobby for digital property to have rights akin to physical property so the right to destroy, lend, sell, or donate it is inherent to a purchase. e.g. maybe a purchase gives you a token and a signed / watermarked file in a playable format. And incentivize providers to sell digital property by taxing services that impose DRM to create a favourable price disparity.
That’s literally uncomparable. Government does things that ignore profit. That’s what government is for. The provide services at a loss. The only “profit” might be things like societal improvement, education, security, and such.
People pay taxes that fund the government. If the money is wasted then services suffer. So it's not profit or loss but they must deliver value. Value is harder to quantify than profit but governments have to figure a way out of doing it and provide incentives to staff to deliver it.
This is something you really can't say one way or the other.
I could cite examples of sick, failing government owned companies that did better under privatization, or simply shouldn't have been governments owned in the first place. On the other hand, I could cite disastrous privatization efforts that should never have happened because they were vital services, or in the national interest. I lived through most of it in the UK when they were privatising stuff left right and centre - some succeeded, others didn't.
And if they stay under the control of government then they need incentivization and means for measuring success. Success doesn't just mean profit but it does mean value and quality of service. And in some ways that would require operating similar to if it were a private company.
If he were some normal dork people would shun him or just tell him to shut the fuck up until the penny dropped and he moderated what he said. But since he is mega rich we get to enjoy his personality in all its terrible glory because there is nobody who can or would dare stand up to him.
Or when he died on his ass on SNL. Or when he appeared in a Rick & Morty episode and managed to kill it by his mere presence. He thinks he is edgy, funny and cool but he isn't. Instead he is awkward, unfunny, weird and deeply unpopular for being a dick.
Cash is off the books so there is an incentive for certain kinds of businesses like tradesmen to take cash because it still works out cheaper since they don't have to declare it to the taxman.
I live in Ireland and for a very long time, I received so few ads I could simply block them away or tolerate them. Then one day, for no apparent reason, my feed was lousy with ads. Not relevant ads, or even generalised ads that anyone in Ireland might see - no, they were Chinese regional development ads, ads in Turkish, ads for various NGOs in Africa. It was absolute meaningless dreck. Were Twitter putting these in my feed as a bug, or to boost impressions of this junk to skim some pennies? I have no idea.
But I uninstalled the app. When I use twitter I launch it through Firefox mobile and uBlock origin and all the ads are stripped out. I don't know if the feed issue I suffered was fixed or is still there. I don't care any more. The way I look at it is, is Twitter is the predominant social media out there but there are many others. I'll leech off the service and if Elon burns his platform to the ground, then there is always somewhere else. He makes out that the world will rise up against advertisers but the reality is Threads or Bluesky will takeover and that will be that.
Seems like a typical narcissistic flex - I'm not at fault for doing the terrible thing, you're at fault for not supporting me do the terrible thing and I shall have my revenge.
Musk acted stranger in that interview than even his default setting. It looks like he's on something. If I were a shareholder in one of his companies I'd be wondering if he's about to have to check into rehab and/or the funny farm.
Anyway regarding his comments, telling the companies that are the lifeblood of Twitter to go f themselves is very brave. In the British understated sense meaning of "very brave", i.e. suicidally dumb.
In almost instances of Linus going off on one in public it is because maintainers weren't doing their jobs (to act as quality gatekeepers), or particular developers thinking they could steam roll road changes through if they kept submitting them, or not listening to what Linus was saying. I remember Linus used to ream out Hans Reiser a lot (the guy who was subsequently imprisoned for murdering his wife) because he constantly tried to get ReiserFS into the kernel despite serious issues Linus had with it.
So generally when you see a rant, there is a history behind it and the rant itself is directed with a point. I also think it's self evident that the kernel has benefited from this "benevolent dictator" model. I'm sure some people have gotten all precious over their feelings being hurt. The rest raised their game and the result has been a code quality standard you'll probably never see anywhere else.