> The problem is that no-one can easily understand how their brain works compared to other people. People on both sides don't talk about it enough or openly enough. If you look at the science it quickly descends in to endless confusing/impenetrable psychiatric terminology.

It's not just how the "science" is conducted, or limited to a fixed number of sides. Everyone doesn't quite know what anyone else experiences. We all just throw around symbols, hoping someone gets what we mean by what we say, and assuming that we know what others mean by what they say. The meat of what we know and experience never gets transmitted faithfully to anyone.

To be certain, many people do have conditions that, say, I will never have. But that doesn't make me "normal" or those people "abnormal". The definition of a disorder by showing harm to living one's life is a good start, but fraught with the complexity of analyzing things in an implicit social context. If it seems that someone has a problem, I'll consider it a problem, not only if it seems sufficiently and officially abnormal.

At the same time, it's arguable that certain observations such as "commercialization and commoditization have become stronger" are true. We're certainly living in an era where a lot can change in a few decades.

>living in an era where a lot can change in a few decades

So were people in 1910. You could say the printing press set up the following industrial revolution and things have been accelerating ever since. People talk that in the future there will be a technological singularity that things will go so fast people won't be able to keep up, but really in many ways we've been in it for a while already and it's still accelerating.

My grandfather rode to school on a horse, saw the last of the nomadic native peoples traveling Iowa, watched polio ruin lives and bring fear, then watched science conquer polio. Watched humans conquer the sky and land on the moon, fought mechanised island warfare as a sent in Marine in the pacific on the side of half the world fighting against the other half of the world. Personally saw the damage of nuclear war in occupied Japan, then watched the world build a 15 minute system for mutually assured nuclear destruction (MAD). Went from mail to shared rural 'party' phone lines, and ended his life with a world connected with a global knowledge network to every home and free video calls to anywhere in the world. He went from canned zucchini/beats in the winter to access to whatever fresh produce (and more importantly ice cream) he wanted all year long.

Unless we make some major breakthroughs, I don't think there will ever be another generation of change like that one.

I won't say that Kubernetes is great at scheduling, access control, and others, but mainstream OSes aren't superb either. General-purpose OSes are decent for many disparate groups of users but rarely satisfy any one.

That's rationalize, not reason.

You don't seem to be making a meaningful distinction. Moreover, both words have been used in this thread.

Yeah, I'm honestly quite confused about the whole situation. There probably was some toxicity behind-the-scenes (maybe after the initial thread), but from who, I don't know. I think maybe the thread seemed polarized in everyone's minds and so it became so in their actions.

Vitamin D and sodium are examples out of a couple core nutrients, and I could list other nutrients such as sugar or fat too. So the rate is not excellent.

> How many errors do police make? Actuaries? Security researchers?

They make plenty of mistakes too. What's your point?

I agree that the discussion doesn't seem to be toxic on the whole, though not superb, although I don't know what happened following in terms of harassment, so that's up in the air for me.

Just as people who strongly prefer permissive licenses deny copyleft licenses, this is the same in reverse. If you don't want to touch GPL projects, then don't.

Im not trying to suggest non gpl licenses are superior and folks writing kernels with gpl are making a mistake. On the contrary I'm advocating that both are fine options and you shouldn't make people feel bad for choosing to not use gpl. There is a difference here and it matters greatly. Most people will not care for the differences between the two and the ones that do will choose the one that aligns with their values. If I'm even a hint of anti gpl, it's due to zealotry of it's supporters.

I think a lot of the backlash for the GPL is unreasonable, and not really better than a lot of the backlash for permissive licenses, and furthermore I believe there are reasonable ideological opinions to prefer one or the other (though ideology isn't an excuse to be mean). But I concede that the person you responded to set a poor standard of discussion.

While the FSF's vision for the GPL is clear, the GPL itself is not so powerful that it is more than a "gift" that has some terms if you want to do certain things you are not obligated to do. It is like a grant that enforces some reasonable conditions so the money isn't just misappropriated. I wouldn't give that to a friend for their birthday, but I think it's reasonable that powerful organizations should not be free to do whatever they want. Not that the GPL is perfect for that use, but it's good.

I assume you're talking about the "would you rather encounter a man or a bear?" thought experiment. I do think some people (presumably men) respond in disturbing ways to the women's responses that choose the bear. But I think choosing the bear is questionable at best, and involves ignorance and bad faith. I think, even if I'm wrong and the better answer is "the bear", there was more room for discussion and reflection so that the future answer is "the man". I guess such a simplistic hypothetical is not the best way to get mutually distrusting parties to come to an understanding.