5 ms·

How did people became so incapable in social interactions that they need a public service to share code they make together?

52-6F-62 7y ago
A public service is exactly people interacting. It just prioritizes posterity over profit.
- TomMarius 7y ago
  No, people interacting is people talking together and then doing things together. Please don't try to act like voting or otherwise going the political route is anything like that. I will believe you once there is no government in the middle. There is absolutely no need for a third party, especially given we're talking about code sharing and not about saving dying people.
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    Talk is ephemeral. That’s why we create systems: longevity and posterity. We use them so they might outlive us and our talk. When you put it in terms of “code sharing” it sounds like an act, rather than what I’m targeting—a repository or library.
    - TomMarius 7y ago
      It is an act. A repository is a thing that helps you do that act. If you want more people to act like you want them to, you should talk to them. If you have anything worthwhile to say, they will listen. Again, we're not talking about dying people.
      - 52-6F-62 7y ago
        I think we might be talking about two different things. (You're losing me with the "dying people" remark. Not sure what you're driving at) I'm only suggesting common repository hosting would be a benefit to humanity, so that source code can be persisted beyond the whims of a private company and accessible by all. I'm not suggesting that anybody should be forced to use it.
        TomMarius 7y ago
        > I think we might be talking about two different things. (You're losing me with the "dying people" remark. Not sure what you're driving at) That is an example of a situation which's solution might have to be solved as a public service because it is literally people dying. Code sharing is not as severe as people dying and thus not really necessary to have it as a public service with all of its shortcomings including unnecessary cost to the state budget and irrationality of the whole idea (just why, we have the nonprofits for exactly this kind of things). > I'm only suggesting common repository hosting would be a benefit to humanity, so that source code can be persisted beyond the whims of a private company and accessible by all. Then do it. You have all the means to do so: - You have Facebook, Reddit, HN, ... to gather community - You have the Internet to find incorporation documents for nonprofits - You have Paypal and cryptocurrencies to receive donations - You have IPFS - You have Git - You have Amazon, DO, Azure... Apparently such service has not enough value even for you if you can't spend $10/month to do it, and thus you want to force other people to do it for you. > I'm not suggesting that anybody should be forced to use it. I'd call you a fucking communist and went away if I thought that.
        52-6F-62 7y ago
        Your tone is surprisingly accusatory given the subject matter. You also seem to be assuming that I'm suggesting such a service should be the domain of the United States. It's a global (read: human) matter. I should maybe be more clear: I see a public service option for code repositories as more of a public library than anything else. I was suggesting something expressly not run by a private company. That's because as we've seen many times over: companies' priorities change over time—products rise and fall. I think code is important. I think it will be important in the future as well. As much as ancient recorded mathematics and literature is important. As well, I see a greater benefit to building common libraries than to burning them. Because I don't favour dictatorships, I see building libraries as the product of agreement. So by default it seems a collaborative effort to me, and not a forced one. All of this is why I consider the subject worth discussing.
        TomMarius 7y ago

52-6F-62 7y ago

A public service is exactly people interacting. It just prioritizes posterity over profit.

TomMarius 7y ago
No, people interacting is people talking together and then doing things together. Please don't try to act like voting or otherwise going the political route is anything like that. I will believe you once there is no government in the middle. There is absolutely no need for a third party, especially given we're talking about code sharing and not about saving dying people.
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  Talk is ephemeral. That’s why we create systems: longevity and posterity. We use them so they might outlive us and our talk. When you put it in terms of “code sharing” it sounds like an act, rather than what I’m targeting—a repository or library.
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    It is an act. A repository is a thing that helps you do that act. If you want more people to act like you want them to, you should talk to them. If you have anything worthwhile to say, they will listen. Again, we're not talking about dying people.
    - 52-6F-62 7y ago
      I think we might be talking about two different things. (You're losing me with the "dying people" remark. Not sure what you're driving at) I'm only suggesting common repository hosting would be a benefit to humanity, so that source code can be persisted beyond the whims of a private company and accessible by all. I'm not suggesting that anybody should be forced to use it.
      - TomMarius 7y ago
        > I think we might be talking about two different things. (You're losing me with the "dying people" remark. Not sure what you're driving at) That is an example of a situation which's solution might have to be solved as a public service because it is literally people dying. Code sharing is not as severe as people dying and thus not really necessary to have it as a public service with all of its shortcomings including unnecessary cost to the state budget and irrationality of the whole idea (just why, we have the nonprofits for exactly this kind of things). > I'm only suggesting common repository hosting would be a benefit to humanity, so that source code can be persisted beyond the whims of a private company and accessible by all. Then do it. You have all the means to do so: - You have Facebook, Reddit, HN, ... to gather community - You have the Internet to find incorporation documents for nonprofits - You have Paypal and cryptocurrencies to receive donations - You have IPFS - You have Git - You have Amazon, DO, Azure... Apparently such service has not enough value even for you if you can't spend $10/month to do it, and thus you want to force other people to do it for you. > I'm not suggesting that anybody should be forced to use it. I'd call you a fucking communist and went away if I thought that.
        52-6F-62 7y ago
        Your tone is surprisingly accusatory given the subject matter. You also seem to be assuming that I'm suggesting such a service should be the domain of the United States. It's a global (read: human) matter. I should maybe be more clear: I see a public service option for code repositories as more of a public library than anything else. I was suggesting something expressly not run by a private company. That's because as we've seen many times over: companies' priorities change over time—products rise and fall. I think code is important. I think it will be important in the future as well. As much as ancient recorded mathematics and literature is important. As well, I see a greater benefit to building common libraries than to burning them. Because I don't favour dictatorships, I see building libraries as the product of agreement. So by default it seems a collaborative effort to me, and not a forced one. All of this is why I consider the subject worth discussing.
        TomMarius 7y ago