TL;DR;

Sounds like a bunch of organisational issues using licensing as a scapegoat.

Again, not giving an opinion on FOSS licencing pro’s and cons, just on the implementation of licensing in general.

My issue with viral licensing is that it means you got to rewrite the code or use another product.

Or…comply with the licence.

but yes, that’s entirely the intention of a licence.

You can use this thing as long as you adhere to the rules set forth, if you don’t want to then feel free to create your own or find something with a licence more to your liking.

They aren’t forcing this on you, using these products is optional.

Also software bom is a hassle.

Absolutely.

However, that feels more like a procurement/evaluation issue.

e.g : “is bringing in this open source, viral GPL audio processing library worth the trade-off of dealing with the compliance vs paying money for a similar commercial product (or building our own)”

Some advanced manufacturing techniques rely on advanced software. So does infrastructure which is often only secured by obscurity. Also all software is filled with vulnerabilities which can get easier to exploit if you have access to the source code.

That sounds again like a person or persons have royally fucked up their evaluation/procurement duties when selecting the components to use in the building of the product a, quality/security/systems design issue rather than a licensing one.

if complying with an open source license causes a product to become a danger to the public, many people, at many stages, have utterly failed to do their job.

Also,i’m sure you know this, but security through obscurity is a poor systems design choice in almost all scenarios.

As you say though, it does happen in the real world.

In those cases someone needs to wear the grown up hat and evaluate the options available, such as removing or replacing the component that requires opening up your source code, or evaluating the trade off of how severe a risk opening up the source code is vs the costs involved in replacing it, or even the potential legal liability of just ignoring the licence.

If you can’t afford any options then your product isn’t viable ( in an “everybody follows the rules” kind of scenario, at least).

Im not expressing an opinion on the viral nature of the licence itself, nor the pros and cons of FOSS, nor am I a FOSS evangelist of any kind.

But you understand it’s optional right? if you don’t like it, don’t use it.

This isn’t some gotcha, you can literally decide not to use the thing under the licence you don’t like. That will solve 100% of the problems you are describing (though it sounds like it’d introduce new, non-licence based problems in whatever example you are thinking of)

Well… I say that, but im actually not sure what you mean by “dangerous to the public”, if you could go in to a bit more detail about what you mean there, I’d appreciate it

The answer is generic …which means it can be applied to the specific circumstance.

Here is an example, as the answer to your question :

this man has 12 years experience as a board member. Would he not have the qualifications to perform the job?

Going by the example evaluation steps i provided, he would have the qualifications to perform the job , if:

• The success criteria for the position were known
• His history/skillset/experience/future prospects were likely to meet or exceed those criteria

If you want to know if he’s the most qualified for the job you also need to:

• Rank all the candidates, based on how well they match to the success criteria.

and he would need to be at the top of the rankings.

If you’re going to ask who does these evaluations in the specific example being talked about, it would be the voters, perhaps a final approval board as well, if one exists in these scenarios.

Outside of that example, it can vary.

I shouldn’t have to but I’m going to point out that i said this is a simple quotable answer, not that it was the only answer, or even the best answer.

My argument has always been that evaluation of fitness for a role isn’t impossible. Not that there is a perfect method, nor that these methods are being used competently or at all. Just that they do exist.

As for personal opinion, this guy sounds like an asshole, i personally know lots of incompetent people in positions they neither earned nor are qualified for, I’m not saying the current state of things is good, because i don’t think it is.

From the rest of this thread i get the impression you’ll appreciate this…so…

Whom is lying now?

Pretty sure that would be a who rather than a whom.

Carry on though…

Perhaps the argument that it isn’t possible to assess merit for a job position is so far outside the realms of reason that asking for clarification is the only way to formulate an answer.

But if you want a simple, quotable answer for the obvious question as it is written, here you go:

• Asses the criteria for which a job would be considered to be successfully performed.
• Check if historical evidence/experience/current skill/expected future growth gives indication that the candidate could meet or exceed those criteria.
• Rank the candidates, based on how well they match to the success criteria.
• ???
• Profit?

It’s tremendously disappointing to see people act like assessing fitness for a role isn’t a thing that has been going on since the dawn of civilisation.

Get a grip.

Now, if you want argue that this isn’t how things are currently done ? I’m right there with you.

The system is a shambolic remnant of what it should be ? couldn’t agree more.

A lot of it is probably by design ? sure, i’m down for that perspective.

But “It isn’t possible to assess merit for a job role”, is a troll at best or extreme ignorance at worst.

If people weren’t asking “are you sure that this is what you meant?” i’d be worried for the state of basic reasoning.

I think to a degree you can see our different styles in just our replies itself, I do care about conversation. I like it and think it’s best when it shares information or opinion about people who care to do so. I also dont think to think I can control it but add my opinion so it is seen and move on when it is obviously not productive.

I can see the difference in style but i think it’s also a difference in perspective. For me, most interactions have useful information in them, even the ones like we’ve been talking about. There is a range of information that you can only get (or is more prevalent in) interactions that aren’t a standard sharing of ideas or opinions, for me at least.

As i said, i do understand this is not the same for everyone.

And I dunno I care about others. I think frustrated yipping at each other isn’t fun empatheticly but I could be wrong about it. If you find interest in this conversation I am not meaning to stop you just wanted to know you were not stuck in that recursive loop (that was the word, thank you) against your own better judgement.

I will admit that my empathy seems to be non-standard, it’s not like i don’t have any but the situations in which it applies seem to differ from what i hear from others.

When i said fun in that initial reply, what i really mean was interest, in a sense that new information/perspectives are enjoyable because of the influx of new information.

Having to work through and around the yipping from one side is sometimes a requirement to get to the interesting bits, it’s not fun, but it is what it is.

i appreciate the heads up though, i’m not immune to getting sucked past the point of interest sometimes.

So you waste your time for the sake of it? I’d say something about not being able to reason someone out of a position they didnt use reason to get into in the first place but I guess its repetitive.

I stated exactly what my reasons are for engaging,

I think the word you are looking for is recursive, i could be wrong though.

You can spend your time as you want but the trolls do build their world by the responses of others. It makes them more real and let’s useless conversation bog down better ones. They are seeking answers they know they won’t get to make it seem like their world is more figured out for waving away other thoughts.

Genuine question, why would i care how they build their world ?

If they want to build a mental echochamber, who am i to deny them their delusions ?

The argument about bogging up otherwise useful conversations has merit though, I’ll consider that going forward.

Though, my side of the argument is still written as a good faith reply so there might be benefit in seeing actual replies, if only from one side…hmm…i’ll think on this.

I dont know. I dont get any joy out of arguing the minutia of nonsense. It feels like it just fills my own head with it and doesnt make me more empathetic to understand that.

It’s not really joy and i’m not really arguing the minutia expecting coherent replies, as i said it’s interesting to me to try and understand different kinds of people, it helps me better communicate in situations where the other party is conversing in good faith.

I’m not really looking to build empathy for that either, perhaps some pity in some really tragic cases where you can see they are truly struggling, but those aren’t usually trolls, just people struggling with people things.

A lot of the time the useful bits aren’t in the bad faith nonsense itself but how it’s structured, the way in which the “logical” pivots occur, the word choice or something else that isn’t the actual content itself.

I get that it might not be like that for everyone.

Personally I am upset to find that someone doesnt want to talk but use me as a springboard for their own stuff but oh well.

I think we might have fundamentally different perspectives on what a conversation can be, but in this case I wasn’t expecting genuine engagement, so I’m not upset or disappointed to find out there wasn’t any.

I’m also not worried about them being upset by my approach, because bad-faith trolls deserve no worry.

Yes, but you have to go slowly or it’ll overwhelm them.

meh, i was hoping it might be a bit more fun later on but it’s been lacklustre so far.

You can’t reason someone out of a position they’ve not reasoned themselves in to but it’s sometimes interesting to see if they genuinely believe the positions they tout and hear how they got there.

Do you expect to find a nuanced new way to handle elections of the school board?

There are easily understood ways of measuring fitness for a position, an easy answer to the actual question of how evaluations could be possible is to use the criteria for what would be considered a successful run as a school board member, historically and ideally.

Use those criteria to evaluate who has a track record of achieving these things, or the potential/skills to go on to achieve these things during the allotted time.

Does this happen? rarely. Could it potentially work, absolutely.

Personal likeability/popularity is probably a part of those criteria (as with any position involving any politics) but it’s not the only one.

Or perhaps, do you honestly expect this troll to say something that changes the whole context of this conversation or make you feel that they have changed in some dramatic way?

Not at all, there’s nothing to indicate any kind of space for an adjustment in their view, if they even have an actual perspective beyond trolling.

I say if you look at it, you are legitimizing a pointless conversation where they weaponize apathy and make it look valuable by comparison to complex issues on a topic you aren’t knowledgeable enough in to argue against, “no u!”

I’m not sure random internet replies legitimise clear bad-faith troll takes.

As i said, my point here wasn’t really to change minds it was more interest in the mindset and reasoning skills of someone who’d post something like that, think of it as internet anthropology.

They never expected an authority figure on it and wouldnt accept one either. They just want your rage and your attention. They aren’t fun enough to play with for you to give either.

I don’t really have any rage, it’s like being angry at a chihuahua for barking.

I’m not expecting good-faith or well reasoned arguments, so I’m not disappointed or angry when they don’t appear.

ok, i’ll change the emphasis.

Who can run is not the only criteria for who is qualified for a position.

Ok, so leaving out the subjective argument of who should be qualified, let’s go with straight up logic, i’ll bullet point it for you.

I’ll even start with your very correct assertion that anybody who can run, can win.

• Anyone eligible to run, can win.
• To win, a candidate has to be voted in (by whatever voting system is used, it doesn’t matter for this)
• A vote is cast by an individual who has their own set of criteria for qualification.
• Unless every single voter’s only criteria is whether or not the candidate is eligible to run then there are other criteria at play.

I’ll also requote myself from an earlier reply.

Perhaps “evaluated for” is more accurate.

Eligibility to run is still not the full criteria for how someone is evaluated for a position though.

Perhaps the disconnect is that you think everyone who is eligible is qualified for the job and it’s just the winner of all these qualified people that is determined by the vote ?

So just to be clear when you say popularity, you mean who people like the most, on a personal level ?

Not something like who people think is the most fit for the job, regardless of personal like or dislike ?

I have no idea what you are saying now. You’re saying, you should dictatorially be given the power to appoint school board members, and you’d do so solely on a first come, first given, basis?

I mean, not at all , read the reply again.

OK, so you are saying you want to be a dictator of school board members, because you are the one who should have sole authority in this area. And you would not judge people based on qualifications or merit?

Ah, i see, you don’t have an actual response so you weaponise ignorance, that’s actually pretty clever.

It’s hard to argue with someone not using reason as a basis, you neither have to present a reasonable argument nor support it, that’s downright devious.

In case that reply was serious and you just missed what i was saying, i’ll try and simplify for you and leave out the extra words around it so there’s nothing to be confused about…ready ?

Who can run is not the only criteria for who is qualified for a position.

popularity as the only criteria or as one of many criteria ?

It’s not an argument. It’s a fact.

That seems definitive, good to have a rock solid source.

My local school board anyone can run. The only requirement is you are a resident of the district you represent, and you are over 18, and you are a registered voter. That’s literally it. There are no other requirements, qualifications, or criteria for running for school board.

Useful information , eligibility to run is still not the full criteria for how someone is evaluated for a position though.

Technically, i suppose it could be considered an initial screening, so you’re not entirely incorrect, just incorrect that it’s the only evaluation mechanism.

If it were , there’d be no need for votes, first person to apply and be eligible would automatically get the job.

Shhhh, don’t overload them with reason, it’s rare to see this kind of naivete in it’s natural form.

edit: some salty salty lurkers around today, come on in, the waters fine, i’m sure you have coherent arguments to add.

That’s not even required (though it would most likely be more accurate ) , there are some easy , low-hanging fruit answers to this question that don’t need expertise.

I’m just interested in seeing if they really think popularity is the best option here.

it can’t be judged without well-defined critical, no.

That’s a partial answer at best , a nice deflection though.

So your argument is that there is no possible criteria by which competence/ability can be judged for a school board position so popularity is the best option ?

seriously, what is the qualification or criteria for being a good school board member? tell me. I’d like to know because as far as I am aware, there absolutely is none.

Once you answer the original question or the newly revised version above i can give you some idea on this.

anyone can run for school board.

Who can run for a school board and how a school board member is evaluated for the position are unrelated.

Just to be clear, you’re arguing that merit/competence can’t be accurately judged and therefore should be ignored in favour of popularity ?

Basically all of modern society functions off of the back of an elaborate , rigged gambling system.

That’s what the stock market is, in a very real way.

This sounds like the AI effect at work. Google’s got an AI that’s autonomously generating novel publishable scientific results and now that’s dismissed as them being just “good at math.”

I can see why it might seem that way from the small reply i gave, but contextually it was in response to you referencing a maths specific problem.

I also went out of my way to specifically raise the same points as in that link, wrt to “intelligence” measurements and definitions.

I wasn’t advocating for one way or the other, just pointing out that (afaik) we don’t currently have a good way of defining or measuring either kind of intelligence, let alone a way to compare them [*].

So timelines on when one will surpass the other by any objective measurements are moot.

[*] Comparisons on isolated tasks is possible and useful in some contexts,but not useful in a general measurement sense without an actual idea of what we should be measuring.

As in, you can measure which vehicle is heavier, but in a context of “Which of these is more red” , weight means nothing.

The root article that this thread is about isn’t about AGI at all, though. It’s about an AI that’s doing computer chip design.

You yourself quoted a response with the phrase “human intelligence” in an ML based context.

I was clearly replying to your comment and not the article itself.