You're not wrong. Why would you? Either works or not. You said it yourself, it's work-related. The rest you could probably work around them if sufficiently motivated.
UdeRecife
joined 2 years ago
Sorry if I mistake your intention. If that's the case, it's just me making a wrong guess.
You're probably misreading this.
I authored THE NAME. If you prefer, I'm the name-giver, the author in this sense.
Linus is the namer and the creator of that kernel.
As creator he is by right allowed to name his creation whatever he likes. Just like me, as the cat 'entity creator as a pet' am allowed to name it whatever I like.
No outsiders input required. You get now what I mean by author?
Whatever your reply may be, let me thank you already for engaging. It's nice to be pressured to explain something in simpler, more accessible terms.
That's what happens when you allow bureaucrats to rule. It happens in every field, in every industry. It sucks how quickly the rules become seriously caricature-like and out of touch. Cf. Kafka's The Trial.
Thanks for the necessary XKCD. First time reading that one.
Well, to be honest, I won't be THAT guy, nor am I crazy to bring back the rotary disk.
Thanks!
And no, I'm not serious. Just reminding that technology, like everything else, changes.
But I loved that project! Made me smile thinking how creative people are.
Maybe you'll like it more under this new guise: I named my cat Goofyball. But since Linnaeus named the species Felis catus, you remind me that my cat's name should ackchyually be Felis catus/Goofyball. To which I reply, very appropriately, 'it's MY cat'. So Goofyball it is.
Understand now the authority argument? Authority in the sense of authorial, having an author.
Not really that fancy. It's just a marketing euphemism. The giving of a cool name to something very mundane.
You're right, it's just a clouded way of saying 'someone else's computer '.
I've been using it for more than 20 years, but I still love when someone pulls the GNU/Linux card.
To me it feels like reading an old plaque in Latin. It reminds me of an important past that shouldn't be forgotten.
The rotary disc on phones!
Hello! Nice to meet you. I know and love your kind. One monitor is pretty standard, so I have a lot of friends just like you.
Yup, 3 monitors user here. I guarantee it's not that uncommon.
(And yes, I'm still running X11)
Philosophically, the premise is flawed. Best life... according to whom?
I mean, the best life for a slug or a fly won't cut it for you. I can imagine a fly being born in such conditions that from that fly's perspective it would be 'the best life' imaginable... for a fly.
There's this passage from Roger Crisp's Mill on Utilitarianism, where he proposes this thought experiment. There one reads:
"You are a soul in heaven waiting to be allocated a life on Earth. It is late Friday afternoon, and you watch anxiously as the supply of available lives dwindles. When your turn comes, the angel in charge offers you a choice between two lives, that of the composer Joseph Haydn and that of an oyster. Besides composing some wonderful music and influencing the evolution of the symphony, Haydn will meet with success and honour in his own lifetime, be cheerful and popular, travel and gain much enjoyment from field sports. The oyster's life is far less exciting. Though this is rather a sophisticated oyster, its life will consist only of mild sensual pleasure, rather like that experienced by humans when floating very drunk in a warm bath. When you request the life of Haydn, the angel sighs, ‘I'll never get rid of this oyster life. It's been hanging around for ages. Look, I'll offer you a special deal. Haydn will die at the age of seventy-seven. But I'll make the oyster life as long as you like...’"
So, a pig or Haydn? A fly or your own life right now?
Guy Debord captures the problem best in his The Society of the Spectacle (1967).
In theory, you could probably go against it. Problem is that the Spectacle (capitalist ideology visually manifested) is tautological and self-reinforcing. Even to critique it you have to make the critique a spectacle, which immediately undermines that very same critique (think of any YouTube video critiquing YouTube).
So no, it's no the same. The odds are insanely stacked up in favor of keeping the structure in place—unlike breaking away from said belief in the divinity of kings.