It's sort of like how we give enormous amounts of money to cops (institutionally), instead of funding the safety nets that actually reduce crime. Actually (edit), those analogies are kind of related, because the same safety nets are important for driving down both of these things. Yk, because people are more stable in other ways when they aren't in desperation all the time.

You might say it's the difference between emergency services and emergency prevention.

Edit: I did eventually find the source. https://linkedin.com/posts/tabitha-lean-5786011a3_nspc26-act...

On that note, not that I think regulation is the entire solution in the first place (see ATProto for an example of something independent of government that gives me hope for the Internet), but I feel that where a lot of the "protect kids" Internet bills fail is that many of them treat that as a separate, special concern in a lot of areas where they could cover it anyway by just trying harder to protect users.

In the US, where I'm writing this, it's sort of like how our age discrimination laws are written just to protect elders, but didn't do anything to protect them from the lower floor that came from letting businesses keep spreading stereotypes about who the minimum wage is for or otherwise pushing hustle culture onto 20somethings.

The use of the Internet to astroturf political discourse is an example of this -- you can't fully protect kids from school shootings with an Internet safety bill if you're not also going after bot farms that exist to benefit the "thoughts and prayers" crowd. But you're also never going to see that in an Internet safety bill for kids, because that (and for that matter a lot of our discourse about addictive mechanics in general) explicitly leaves out voters.

(clarifying edit: I'm not saying there aren't valid concerns around this topic. I am saying that when we say things like "experimenting on users' mental health without their knowledge is bad," the baseline should be that you don't have to add anything to the sentence for it to be taken seriously.)

I also applied there some three or so times, and didn't get those either.

Attempting to network with people here led them to promise me at least a response (since these roles were still open, and have been), but they ghosted me then -- only to blindside me about it over a year later, when interviewing me for a different role.

And while they're not the only place ever to grill me about a bad experience at a prior employer, they are the only place ever to explicitly ask me to tell them something I didn't like about one. Or to rate a previous boss (horrible or otherwise) on a scale of 1 to 10.

This, by the way, was all while I accommodated an overseas recruiter by taking an interview at 7pm on a Sunday.

I don't at all feel like I encountered the same level of respect, and while I was genuinely interested in their stated values (including but not limited to their value proposition) and their subject matter, based on my actual interactions with them I really can't recommend applying here.

Also is there a way of exposing an existing touchpad to that new control board for your external one? (Or keyboard I guess, but the use case is that I had to replace my keyboard too, and for what was available at the time ended up just going with a whole input cover. Truthfully, I was already curious about exposing it to USB-C before hearing about this, and prefer wired anyway, but am also curious about the more immediately relevant part of the question.)

I'm not saying I'm for those over open source licenses in general, but Prusa brought up some fair questions when discussing the OCL. Essentially: define "personal use." Have I violated a non-commercial license if I print this keyboard and then use it to build someone a website? Does CC-NC mean a Prusacaster -- or any guitar knob with such a license for that matter -- is strictly barred from being taken on tour? Or used to record albums that are then sold? (And I say "guitar" knob, but I'm choosing an example a little consciously that could exist in any variety of controls, instrument and otherwise.)

Where are the lines of that when it's physical things? How far downstream does that go if it isn't CC-NC-SA in particular?

I'm not really sure that Creative Commons had the idea of physical production in mind, given that it dates back to a time when we were more broadly talking about digital piracy, and I honestly haven't kept up with its evolution much in more recent years. But maybe it just doesn't make the same sense for designs of physical things, for comparable reasons to why it wouldn't make sense for code -- and, conversely, open source projects that opt to use CC licenses for assets.

(None of this would stop me from attempting to build/mod one for fun, mind you. It just raises what a more averse person might call risks, and what I will at least call curiosities.)

Whereas in more recent years, keeping a closed-source rendering engine that was no longer competitive in implementing the spec, wasn't being used when people had a choice, and was being used as a dependency for core components of the OS, probably wasn't winning many arguments.

(Edit: yes, I know Chakra was open source. I meant Trident.)