This is similar to an intuition I've had about what it means to program "algorithmically". We often draw a distinction between "algorithms" and "business logic", but fundamentally they are the same thing. They are both plans of the steps necessary to accomplish a goal. The only difference, in my mind, is the style in which the program is written. To program "algorithmically" means to take steps to make undesirable program states impossible to represent.
- In the case of search or sort algorithms, where the primary concern is the speed of computation, undesirable states would be performing unnecessary or duplicate computations.
- In the case of encryption algorithms, undesirable states would be those that leak encrypted data.
- In the case of an order shipping and fulfillment system, an undesirable state would be marking an order as fulfilled when not all of the items have been delivered.
The more care that is taken to prevent undesirable states, the more the program takes on an algorithmic style. And the only way you can be sure that those undesirable states are impossible is to think in terms of proofs and invariants.
Not every case of reframing in a debate is "whataboutism". Whataboutism is where you bring up unrelated topics. In this case, looking at how we got into a messy situation in the first place is entirely legitimate.
> There is no discussion to be had when the Trump admin is directly violating people's constitutional rights.
And yet here you are, still talking. So long as we are continuing this conversation, do you have any thoughts on how the executive branch should effectively enforce immigration law, which it has an obligation to do, according to the constitution?
I've heard that accusation so frequently from people who have zero concern about the constitution, let alone even know what it says, that I honestly struggle not to laugh.
I quite obviously reject your framing, and believe that there is a real discussion about how to properly adhere to the constitution in the face of conflicting considerations. But you do you.
No, you made up a hypothetical scenario that was highly sympathetic to your position. I am saying that we should not let edge cases (real or hypothetical) dictate general policy on how we handle immigration law enforcement, and that any outrage we feel at the tragedies that result from such enforcement should be directed toward the people that allowed these situations to develop in the first place.
> Which is why all US military clothing is mandated to be domestically produced (Berry Amendment).
Cool.
> But how much industrial capacity do you want to take up making clothing?
I actually want the market to decide that. But that is fundamentally what we do not have. It has been more or less the result of conscious trade policy (by all governments involved) to incentivize production in other countries.
1. The regulatory burden on manufacturing is much higher here than foreign countries
2. Those foreign countries have a deliberate policy of maintaining a trade surplus in order to improve their own industrial capacity at the expense of our own
I would absolutely expect that even in a more level trade environment there would still be some foreign manufacturing of clothes. But what we are seeing is not the happy accident of the free market, but the result of very deliberate government policy.
> Do you want people operating sewing machines or (say) welders?
Adequate clothing is actually a very important in war. Frostbite, sunburn, heat exhaustion, cuts and scrapes (which can lead to infection), trench foot, etc. are all conditions that can be mitigated through clothing.
Minimum wage is possibly the worst, most ham-fisted way of driving productivity gains. Minimum wage and similar regulations are why so many jobs have shifted overseas in the first place. The "productivity gains" have almost entirely consisted in improved logistics for mobilizing cheaper foreign labor, not actually making domestic workers any more productive.
One major reason why it is cheaper to make these clothes overseas is because we have such a stringent regulatory regime for worker and environmental protections, and using foreign manufacturers is essentially a loophole through those regulations. Whether those regulations are useful or not is entirely beside the point: if they are good, then moving manufacturing over to lower regulation countries is bad and we should impose tariffs on all of those goods. If those regulations are bad, then we should just repeal them and let domestic manufacturers compete on an even playing field.
> but replacing the fundamental principles of existing licenses with new simple principles that slice the world into acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a better fashion.
Feel free to come up with a different set of principles, but don't call it FOSS.
What frustrates me about this current FOSS discourse is that the are a bunch of people who want to change FOSS principles without (seemingly) understanding what those original principles are or why they were chosen. These critics live in a world in which FOSS has been uproariously successful but don't appear to appreciate what was necessary for it to be successful in the first place.
You cannot have soft enforcement of ethical norms without hard entry requirements. That soft enforcement can only be achieved in the context of high trust social groups, which exist in the context of relatively insular cultures.
- In the case of search or sort algorithms, where the primary concern is the speed of computation, undesirable states would be performing unnecessary or duplicate computations.
- In the case of encryption algorithms, undesirable states would be those that leak encrypted data.
- In the case of an order shipping and fulfillment system, an undesirable state would be marking an order as fulfilled when not all of the items have been delivered.
The more care that is taken to prevent undesirable states, the more the program takes on an algorithmic style. And the only way you can be sure that those undesirable states are impossible is to think in terms of proofs and invariants.