4 ms·

> You also seem to be assuming that I'm suggesting such a service should be the domain of the United States Doing this through any government or government-lik

> You also seem to be assuming that I'm suggesting such a service should be the domain of the United States Doing this through any government or government-like organization is wrong. If your proposal is about a nonprofit group of people doing that as a sort of public service, then I'm sorry I agree with the rest In my country and IMHO generally in discussions "public services" (akin to "public utilities") are provided by governments.

52-6F-62 7y ago
> Doing this through any government or government-like organization is wrong. This seems to be where we diverge, then. I disagree. I do think that how its implemented is crucial, but not that the form of system is. That is, government not as hard authority but as collaboration. Non-profits are not much less volatile than private companies. One would be a step in the right direction, sure. The form of a government is hardly different from any other authoritative body—I don't think it's productive to think of it as a bad word. Implementation is primary.
- TomMarius 7y ago
  I am still waiting for the reasoning - why the hell can't people do it by themselves and need government for this? What is so hard about creating a Slack group and funding a $10 DO instance together, eventually growing it further? Why would you force the society to pay up for such a unnecessary thing that could be done 1000x-10000x cheaper (not kidding, I have some insight into governmental IT) and better if people just did it themselves? How do you propose to solve issues inherent to governmental projects? How do you propose to solve things such as right to equal access to public services? I strongly despise the current "'it should be done' instead of 'we do this'" trend. Just get the hell up and do it, code sharing does not even need any investment! Talk to your neighbors/friends/use the internet. You don't need the government to live your life. It was supposed to be there in case something goes wrong and for-profit help could become dangerous, not for other things such as code sharing... ... TBH I still can't really believe someone thinks we need the government to provide repositories, or that it'd be a good thing. Just why?
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    You again seem to be applying what I'm saying to what seems to be your experience with the American government. You also seem to be representing what I’ve been saying as if I’ve suggested there should be only one, centrally-located repository and that is not the case. One of the first suggestions I had was the UN or IEEE. For what it's worth, I have volunteered software engineering time for the former, and it was productive and barrier-free. My reasoning, that I've stated multiple times, is posterity. I think a system could be valuable for the same reasons we make libraries publicly funded and run institutions. I'm sorry but you seem hung up on semantics. I just don't see collaboration in the context of a public institution as somehow separate from person-to-person collaboration. It's only your perspective on it that removes it. It is completely a matter of implementation, and the rest is semantics. We simply can't rely on a VM hosted by a profit-focused company as the backbone for record-keeping in posterity. The goal being something other than economic profit means it can never be the priority of such an organization. I was never trying to start an argument, but a discussion about possibilities.
    - TomMarius 7y ago
      > You again seem to be applying what I'm saying to what seems to be your experience with the American government I am European with direct experience with around 20 governments of the union; I've never visited the USA > I just don't see collaboration in the context of a public institution as somehow separate from person-to-person collaboration. One involves politics, lawmaking, ministers, directors, budgets, projects and governments and... And one does not. Pretty huge difference. > We simply can't rely on a VM hosted by a profit-focused company as the backbone for record-keeping in posterity. I already suggested IPFS, and there are more solutions to distributed data than you'd like. Choosing government for your purposes is about the worst thing you could do, even the government rather uses Amazon. My current government exists mere 30 years and each switch was accompanied by literal record burning. The previous communist phase lasted 40 years, and the one before that 20 years. > One of the first suggestions I had was the UN or IEEE. Why not Wikipedia or similar? That's what I am suggesting, basically
      - 7y ago

52-6F-62 7y ago

> Doing this through any government or government-like organization is wrong. This seems to be where we diverge, then. I disagree. I do think that how its implemented is crucial, but not that the form of system is. That is, government not as hard authority but as collaboration. Non-profits are not much less volatile than private companies. One would be a step in the right direction, sure. The form of a government is hardly different from any other authoritative body—I don't think it's productive to think of it as a bad word. Implementation is primary.

TomMarius 7y ago
I am still waiting for the reasoning - why the hell can't people do it by themselves and need government for this? What is so hard about creating a Slack group and funding a $10 DO instance together, eventually growing it further? Why would you force the society to pay up for such a unnecessary thing that could be done 1000x-10000x cheaper (not kidding, I have some insight into governmental IT) and better if people just did it themselves? How do you propose to solve issues inherent to governmental projects? How do you propose to solve things such as right to equal access to public services? I strongly despise the current "'it should be done' instead of 'we do this'" trend. Just get the hell up and do it, code sharing does not even need any investment! Talk to your neighbors/friends/use the internet. You don't need the government to live your life. It was supposed to be there in case something goes wrong and for-profit help could become dangerous, not for other things such as code sharing... ... TBH I still can't really believe someone thinks we need the government to provide repositories, or that it'd be a good thing. Just why?
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  You again seem to be applying what I'm saying to what seems to be your experience with the American government. You also seem to be representing what I’ve been saying as if I’ve suggested there should be only one, centrally-located repository and that is not the case. One of the first suggestions I had was the UN or IEEE. For what it's worth, I have volunteered software engineering time for the former, and it was productive and barrier-free. My reasoning, that I've stated multiple times, is posterity. I think a system could be valuable for the same reasons we make libraries publicly funded and run institutions. I'm sorry but you seem hung up on semantics. I just don't see collaboration in the context of a public institution as somehow separate from person-to-person collaboration. It's only your perspective on it that removes it. It is completely a matter of implementation, and the rest is semantics. We simply can't rely on a VM hosted by a profit-focused company as the backbone for record-keeping in posterity. The goal being something other than economic profit means it can never be the priority of such an organization. I was never trying to start an argument, but a discussion about possibilities.
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    > You again seem to be applying what I'm saying to what seems to be your experience with the American government I am European with direct experience with around 20 governments of the union; I've never visited the USA > I just don't see collaboration in the context of a public institution as somehow separate from person-to-person collaboration. One involves politics, lawmaking, ministers, directors, budgets, projects and governments and... And one does not. Pretty huge difference. > We simply can't rely on a VM hosted by a profit-focused company as the backbone for record-keeping in posterity. I already suggested IPFS, and there are more solutions to distributed data than you'd like. Choosing government for your purposes is about the worst thing you could do, even the government rather uses Amazon. My current government exists mere 30 years and each switch was accompanied by literal record burning. The previous communist phase lasted 40 years, and the one before that 20 years. > One of the first suggestions I had was the UN or IEEE. Why not Wikipedia or similar? That's what I am suggesting, basically
    - 7y ago