I don't think Google added much closed source to Android until after Amazon - probably Google's 2nd biggest competitor - forked Android for their own tablets. In that case, it kinda' worked and the threat diminished, but never-the-less I think I agree with you - it wouldn't work this time - and I don't think Google will do it.
It does suggest though that they would have been better off making Chrome closed source from the beginning (WebKit is BSD), and while I hate to say such a thing, I think the whole market would be better off. Then, instead of all these copies of Chrome being the primary alternatives to Chrome, Firefox would be doing much better. Mozilla would then be in a dramatically better financial position and could continue to make great contributions to open source in spite of Apple blocking them on iOS. Maybe their increased user base and significance would even force Apple to relent!
Yes, it is just one factor.
My understanding is that MS's contributions to Chromium are minimal so far and are mostly to address their own issues and priorities, but I guess such judgements are hard to actually quantify so they end up being subjective.
Yes, I probably should have said 'Chromium' instead of Chrome, but I had understood that the closed portions of Chrome & Chrome OS were just the telemetry and the media decryption module (and I like what they did to reduce that to a minimum and make it optional). Nothing like what has happened on Android where Play Services and the Play Store are substantial elements.
So, I still think of Chrome as effectively, truly open source and Android not so much.
In a case like this where - as I think you are suggesting - the alternatives are very similar and any would do, I think there is something to be said for supporting the ones that are doing the actual work of building the product, ie. Chrome.
It seems like MS didn't do much more then copy Chrome, put their telemetry in place of Google's, and add some bonus features to promote - so Google keeping Chrome open source is being used against them by their biggest rival. It's the sort of predicament that caused a number of smaller companies to abandon proper open-source licenses when AWS did the same thing to their products. That whole saga was sad and bad for open source, and it would be sad too if Google did to Chrome what they've done to Android - adding some closed source components to make it harder for rivals to simply copy - but at this point I guess understand. (I would probably feel differently if MS open sourced Windows or Office.)
I guess it depends on how you define censorship. In this case, it wasn't pulled because the audience found it objectionable or because the owners of the medium wanted to silence the author or material. It was pulled, with the agreement of the author, because of an issue with a source.
I don't consider it censorship if a newspaper and journalist agree to spike a story because of a legitimate issue with a source.
To address that concern, I think it is important that a service has good data export. One thing that is good about Notion is that the data you are creating is fairly generic: markdown and tables, so now that they are popular and have a public API we are seeing lots of services for moving and sync'ing their data with other services.
I've thought about trying Roam, but it is expensive and I worry that, if I use it for a while but then decide it is no longer worth the cost, how will I move that data elsewhere?
Yes, and having that database like functionality, as well as the usual note taking, is really a great addition. And sync is critical IMO. If they would just make the web front-end faster I would stop looking for alternatives.
This is an important but tricky category.
I liked Notion for a while, and it certainly has done well, but it has pivoted to the Enterprise market and away from individual consumers, and more importantly, it is just too slow.
I'm kinda bummed. I got half way through and was finding it fascinating, but then got interrupted. When I tried to return it was gone.
I will subscribe to this page in the hopes that I hear of the return of the notes.
It does surprise me that cyronics is not more popular than it is.
I'd like to add another consideration to your list of impediments: the difficulty of actually executing upon a plan to get oneself cryopreserved.
Let's say you are not concerned with sudden, unexpected death - which should make things simpler and cheaper - but you do want a plan to preempt mental decline, eg. dementia. Assume also that you are completely confident that you can do whatever is required of yourself - the hardest part should be something akin to committing suicide but I think this would be less difficult for the sort of people who would consider cryopreservation (eg. no religious qualms about suicide).
Nevertheless, upon investigation, it appears to be near impossible in the current US regulatory environment to make this happen. And much worse if you are not in the US so you need to get yourself or your body/brain there.
Perhaps the development of cryopreservation operations in countries with less developed (or less well enforced) regulatory frameworks would help address this, eg. I think I read that there is now a company in Russia...
If you look at the 'ETA' paragraph at the end I would say she is effectively retracting that post.
Also, that Amazon link is long and confusing so readers won't know if it may be an affiliate link. Better to use a bare version such as
or even just
Note that I'm not saying the link was an affiliate link (I don't know) and I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone here intentionally used one - often they get picked up and reused without the author even realizing it. I'm also not suggesting that they are always wrong: they have a place when disclosed - but they are becoming so common that readers and writers should be wary of them.