If we're talking deep 1800s, this becomes more complex. As a factory worker, you may not have time and money to buy or own much of anything substantial. But you do have to buy clothes and such. Putting aside extreme examples like isolated company towns, you probably aren't on any long term contract. Why would they give you that, you live in a big city with dozens of factories and tens of thousands of people desperate for work. I'd say this is midway between Uber and how we imagine industrial employment today. If you don't come, they just don't pay you, and if they get mildly annoyed, they can fire you for any reason any time. From what I gather, you would negotiate with the floormaster some very much unpaid time to do a very specific thing, being very careful not to appear "lazy" or disobedient. People did become sick and sometimes returned to work afterwards.

This is based on from I remember from reading contemporary fiction and historiography on the period. But if you think an unmarried worker bought their clothing by some other means, please enlighten us.

Besides, if we go back far enough, upperish middle class people would hire servants. The original 101 Dalmatians film comes to mind.

Regardless I'd argue gaming may be the one media category left (after the recent decade's value decline) where piracy remains to seem like more hassle than buying a copy^W license. I would also guess it is more concentrated on a few popular titles compared to music or films. Nowadays I hear more of people collecting games on Steam, to never play them, than of legitimate pirates.

I don't have to say I don't question that we are very civilized and powerful.

You are meant to "own the means of production" not in an actual, but more ideal sense. Owning a farm or workshop to the exclusion of other people makes you petit bourgeois and this is bad. Communism promotes collective farms. AFAIK Poland was the only European Eastern Bloc country to tolerate small private farms, as a concession to obstinate peasants after the death of Stalin.

Promoting small individual farms is a more Georgist, populist capitalist or possibly strictly conservative policy. Not speaking to its economic sense though.

The important point is, if the erosion of civil liberties continues, these governments are losing their high ground. They must stop.

As in the Cold War, I would give an allowance for the West to still be preferable (modulo strict rights record) if they actually muster some sort of power to confront tyranny. But if the rulers only want cheap rhetoric wins, no.

To be fair, it's hard to imagine economy and civilization crashing hard enough to force us to be more efficient. But who knows.

Organizationally enforcing strategy would be the issue. And also that the people most interested in making rules for others in an organization may not be the ones best qualified to program. And automatic tools (linters) by necessity focus on very surface level, local stuff.

That's how you get the argument for the small teams productivity camp.

LLM could commit plagiarism if authorship of generated media was claimed for either the LLM or its creators.

Sadly these things are often decided by rhetoric in society, but then again, there's no actual debate if it's just throwing slogans.

Now some of the same rhetoric is used in the AI battle. The only question worth asking here is what's the social benefit, as human culture is by nature all commons and derivation. But in this case, the AI companies are also accumulating power, and LLMs are removing attribution which could be argued to discourage publishing new works more than piracy. A "pirate" may learn about you and later buy from you in different ways, a LLM user won't even know that you exist.

[1] Not even discussing how exaggerated these privileges are from what would be reasonable.

I'm not a fan of bundling everything under the sun personally. But it could work if people had more discipline of adding a minimal number of dependencies that would be themselves lightweight. OR be big, common and maintain backwards compatibility so they can be deduplicated. So sort of the opposite of the culture of putting everything through HTTP APIs, deprecating stuff left and right every month, Electron (which puts the browser complexity into anything), and pulling whole trees of dependencies in dynamic languages.

This is probably one of the biggest pitfalls of Linux, saying this as someone to whom it's the sanest available OS despite this. But the root of the problem is wider, it's just the fact that we tend to dump the reduction of development costs onto all users in more resources usage. Unless some big corp cares to make stuff more economical, or the project is right for some mad hobbyist. As someone else said, corps don't really care about Linux desktop.

On the other hand, people tend to be happy with a history that ignores 90+% of what happened, instead focusing on a "central" narrative, which traditionally focussed on maybe 5 Euro-Atlantic great powers, and nowadays somewhat pretends not to.

That being said, I don't like the subjectivist take on historical truth advanced by the article. Maybe it's hard to positively establish facts, but it doesn't mean one cannot negatively establish falsehoods and this matters more in practice, in the end. This feels salient when touching on opinions of Carr's as a Soviet-friendly historian.

The internet is like media (press) or communication by letters. Both extremely established in terms of guaranteeing freedom of speech and in the latter case, also secrecy. And the ID identification (that you then make your argument about) is only loosely related to free speech strictly. It's about being constantly searched and surveilled with a presumption of crime.

The problem is there is no money and fame in using it that way, or at least so people think in the current moment. But we could return to enforcing some sort of clear, pro-reader writing and bury the 2010s-2020s SEO garbage on page 30.

Not the mention that the LLMs randomly lie to you with less secondary hints at trustworthiness (author, website, other articles, design etc.) than you get in any other medium. And the sustainability side of incentivizing people to publish anything. I really see the devil of convenience as the only argument for the LLM summaries here.

Not to pick on you, but I find it quicker to open new tab and do "!w robots.txt" (for search engines supporting the bang notation) or "wiki robots.txt" (for Google I guess). The answer is right there, no need to explain to LLM what I want or verify [1].

[1] Ok, Wikipedia can be wrong, but at least it is a commonly accessible source of wrong I can point people to if they call me out. Plus my predictive model of Wikipedia wrongness gives me pretty low likelihood for something like this, while for ChatGPT it is more random.