There has never been an "unprovoked aggression against Yugoslavia". More than 130K people were killed and 4 million displaced (mainly by Serb troops) and people begged for an intervention, which came to late (think about Sarajevo, Srebrenica).
You missed the point, he didn't mention history in general, but specifically "Finnish history".
In this respect it's not about British colonialism but more about about Russian imperialism / Stalinism (see Russo-Finnish war 1939).
Did he just now realized that history? For over 30 years accepting contributions from the "enemy"? Then when the history is employed, how about he as a Finn bans also Swedish contributors?
The correlation of the historical anti-Finnish aggression with present aggression and direct new threats against Finland is fairly recent, and Linus isn't pointing to his awareness of the historical and present national context as a reason for the action but as a recent why it is silly to expect him to be lax about the legal advice that is the reason for the actions.
Did you just realized that Torvald is not racist or anti-russian at all?
He didn't block any russian maintainers until today (more than 2 years after russia turning genocidal imperial again).
Linus is acting based on his country's historical grievances, it only makes sense that other projects make decisions based on their own maintainers' grievances - if we approve of this as a good way of making decisions in open source. That's my point.
And even with Linux, it's not Linus' personal project anymore, hasn't been for decades - it's a global project with developers from many countries with their own views and biases. Being BDFL doesn't mean that your geopolitical agenda becomes the whole project's. Or at least, it wasn't so blatantly put on display previously that that was the case.
A high profile project like Linux doing this will have long term repercussions for how open source operates globally.
That's quite a misrepresentation of his statements.
"I'm Finnish. Did you think I'd be supporting Russian aggression..." is certainly not about grievance. As a matter of fact, the russian aggression is real and not about finish historical grievances.
Open source is fostering collaborative environments, while russia as a state is destroying them deliberately. How does that fit together?
Nearly 1 million Russians left Russia because they didn't want to end as ghouls in an imperial war, that's demonizing AND killing people because of their home nation.
I just put your "demonizing people because of their home nation" into perspective, dude. Staying in russia as a kernel maintainer and playing the political ignorant is just lost.
There's an idea that modern lives demand value in material terms. Usually it's monetary value. It's based on materialism and economics and can be seen most clearly in consumerism.
Even not spending time or money has to be worth something. Why do nothing if I can't measure the benefits.
Another example of this could be in the adoption of "Mindfulness" vs meditation. Mindfulness is a useful thing it can be measured and it has an industry behind it.
It's a philosophy that we see more and more in every part of our lives.
Consider art or poetry. Did people make art to be measured or to be useful?
> Did people make art to be measured or to be useful?
Quite often to put food on the table, or for clout. There’s an intrinsic desire to create, sure, but there’s also a cultural context in which art is valued and certain kinds of art are valued more at different times or in different places.
I suppose it’s splitting hairs to say that art has some use both for the creator and the consumer, because it’s not the same kind of use you mean.
It’s just that when I dig in to “useful” vs “useless” endevours there’s often no clear line between them.
Utilitarianism definitely has a lot of well established shortcomings, like quantifying utility and doing so objectively which sort of, IMO, makes most of it nonsensical as quantified utility is ultimately subjective unless you want utility to be defined by a consensus, which is what we do in practice. So it’s really what the masses decide is valuable and how valuable, even though we know from practice that mass assessment isn’t inherently accurate, good, or often even desirable. Yet we do it because it looks objectively analytic.
What is your definition of utilitarianism? Utilitarianism is not a form of democracy. Good is not subject to a vote and is not decided by the masses.
Fwiw: "Utilitarianism is a theory of morality that advocates actions that foster happiness or pleasure and oppose actions that cause unhappiness or harm. When directed toward making social, economic, or political decisions, a utilitarian philosophy would aim for the betterment of society as a whole."
> There's an idea that modern lives demand value in material terms.
All lives demand value in caloric or reproductive terms. Economics teaches us that most commodities are fungible. If you receive material value, this can be exchanged for caloric or reproductive value. Thus, modern (and non-modern) lives demand value in material terms. This isn't a philosophy, it's just a fact.
It may tasteless to you, but most people are just trying to achieve those material terms as efficiently as possible.
> What happens when I already have all the calorific or reproductive value I need?
How would you even determine how much you need? You labor under the illusion that you're an intelligent being. Evolution does not care about "enough"... because there is no way to determine what "enough" is. What is enough today will not help you survive tomorrow's famine. Best stock up now. If you were so smart, you'd get that. What others call greed is subconscious anticipation of calamity.
Evolution has not solved the principal-agent problem.
> What is enough today will not help you survive tomorrow's famine.
Tomorrow's famine will be caused by you (read: those behaving as you describe) not knowing when enough is enough. Best preserve what we have, rather than waste it all in a frantic bid for number-goes-up.
Maybe it's moralizing, but I don't think it's wrong. I'm using the same model as you, after all, only I'm applying Kantian ethics instead of unconsidered egoism.
• If you wish yourself maximal reproductive fitness, then all humanity will be your descendants, and the next few centuries of all human interest is your interest.
• The iterated prisoner's dilemma is a classic economic argument, by which Tragedy of the Commons-type behaviours can be averted. (Garrett Hardin's 1968 paper is a load of nonsense.)
I'm not sure what would contrast my earlier "leftist moralizing", because I have absolutely no idea what a leftist is.
There's a long history of visual art being created in the service of god worship. Musical art too. Much of Bach's oeuvre is in service to the god of the Protestant church.
Numbers go brrrt. It's the gamification of everything; lines of code written, number of tasks ticked off, number of words written in a day (often in the context of fanfictino, doesn't matter if the story is good), shades of green on github, hours slept, minutes meditated, seconds spent doing nothing according to a website promoting the virtues of doing nothing.
I mean I get it, idle / factory games are one of my vices. But I won't let it control my existence.
After a tragedy it's customary to call for a 'minute of silence' even this purposeful exercise of nothing but thoughts is measured in minutes too. I don't think it takes from the desired outcome.
There is some irony hidden in the remark that his wife sent him the inspiring quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson, that compares books to meals having eaten.
