All of Tom's Comments + Replies

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 auth... (read more)

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... (read more)

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.

I agree there's a large gap between Chrome and Android on this...though I do think they're on the same spectrum. Agreed that MS has made their Chromium contributions in areas that are important to them, but then that's always the case with all contributors to OSS, no?  As of a year ago they'd made 1800 PRs from 160 devs. Of course, as you say, what counts as "substantial" is hard to quantify.  A PR can be a small typo fix or a complete reworking of a core technology, so it'd take a lot of work to pin down substantial-ness, and then a person would still be arguing about if it was important or not.

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 ... (read more)

1Rudi C2y
I doubt Google can "add closed source components" to Chrome with any success. MS will simply recreate the extensions in open-source, getting a lot of mindshare and PR in the process. Android became what it is because Google was ahead of the curve and other companies did not know how useful mobile OSes were going to be.
I have sympathy for this argument, and I do assign some weight to this factor. That being said, it doesn't overweigh the other factors in my choice. Part of that is down to the fact that MS is (I haven't actually checked, just what I've heard) making good and substantial contributions back to Chromium...which Google then merges back to Chrome. Google does add closed source stuff to Chrome. The open source stuff is in Chromium and then Google adds their own stuff to that and releases that as Chrome which is closed source. 

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.

Newspapers are mostly garbage, and I do not, by default, admire their epistemic or typical "moral" standards. To the degree that the first amendment is wise, it is by making sure that if evil powers are temporarily in control of the government, even then they can't prevent the spread of the truth, because the tools for the spreading of truth are so clearly protected that even the spreaders of intellectual sewage are granted the right to operate. Newspapers rake muck through exaggeration, and spread falsehoods, and bash people indirectly during political seasons, and build viewership via tabloid antics when no elections are at stake. The whole thing is is essentially patrimonial with the Owner/CEOs and the CEO's delegated Editors as the monarch-like rulers-over-the-mere-writers, with the powerful folk existing in a murky world of favors and dirty deals, and the minions towing the line as they must, because they are working stiffs who need a job, and some things are "above their pay grade". This works for some things, like making ice cream and building houses. Capitalism, baby! Lesswrong does not pay the writers that I've heard of? And Lesswrong doesn't direct our writing. And I think probably: thank goodness for that? You say: Contrast this with my claim over in a cousin comment (which did not have the bold over there): I don't want to harp too much on this bit, which feels close to the crux for me...  Reading above, Ruby claims to have the final say... and used her final say to say that it was the author's say...  This is a beautiful waffle, and Ruby perhaps deserves a very prestigious and beautiful Reagan Clinton Trump Teflon Waffleiron Award for wiggling out of this mess without ceding power or offending very many people <3 But like: If Lesswrong was just definitely and clearly a patrimonial system, and the mods often spiked stories as a favor to rich guys, because maybe the mods want to make the rich guy comfortable, because the rich guys have power and

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 currently on Notion and have went through many off these different things. I'm always worried about getting too invested and then the company going under. However, the open source things are always a little too rough around the edges for my taste.
2Hans R2y
I'm currently using Notion and agree on the "slow" part.  However, what Notion does give you, which other, mostly markdown / flat-file based systems do not, is a form of "data-base", or more truthfully spreadsheet-like applications with light formulas, sorting, filtering etc. Also, the free version also includes sharing / "publication" and sync. I do not use it heavily, but those are the reasons I'm sticking with it for now.

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... (read more)

I would just take issue with how you've defined the problem space: the web is an internet platform that compete with other platforms like iOS, Facebook, etc. 

I don't think the problem of bad content is specific to the web. Actually I think that the web is where we are most likely to encounter stuff like LessWrong and Wust.

Yes, I'm being sensitive about this point - I love the web and am sad to see it slowly losing the tech and user battle to the tightly controlled proprietary platforms.