> And I agree with you that younger generations, probably at large due to social media, are not patient enough to get rich by saving.
Speaking as someone in a younger generation, there's a sense that with the climate sword of Damocles dangling overhead and countless people stressing the already fraying hair, perhaps we may not have sufficient time to accumulate any sort of wealth by saving. Perhaps this is just a lack of patience in our generation, but I think it's quite possible there are bigger factors at play.
If climate change is cataclysmic, no amount of savings/wealth will help you (outside of Elon/Zuck type wealth). If it's merely disruptive, then it's just another factor to consider in your investments.
Think of it like nuclear weapons. You can't really plan for nuclear war, but you can still take nuclear capability into account when making financial decisions (e.g. China is unlikely to annex Taiwan because of US nukes so investing in TSMC is not a terrible move).
That's why I compared it to nuclear weapons. There's little point in making decisions based on possible cataclysmic events you can't predict or control. I think it's wise to plan based on a more optimistic reading of the future instead even if you think the cataclysm is inevitable.
It's also notable that the "Boomers" managed to do this with the spectre of nuclear war hanging over them and this threat never actually went away. The younger generation just chooses to ignore possible nuclear war cataclysms in favor of possible climate cataclysms.
Edit: Just consider how "real" the threat of nuclear war must have been to someone who had regular "duck and cover" drills in school. There's nothing comparable for climate change (yet).
Even though I consider myself a flaming liberal, this is the one "conservative boomer" belief I allow myself to have: Telling an entire generation that 'they have no future because of something they cannot control' has been huge a society-wide mistake, turning so many people into doomers or reckless gamblers, incapable of planning for their future. I think we are starting to finally bear the fruit of telling our children's generation over and over that there is no future and no hope.
It's been more than one generation at this point, and it gets louder with each one
People forget that the "climate cataclysm" doomsaying started decades ago. There are articles about "we will be under water/burning alive/etc in only a few years!!" As far back as the 70s. Maybe before!
So it's been a huge mistake in two ways, because it's led to two types of outcomes:
The first is like you said, the younger generations have basically given up. High rates of depression, anxiety, and just general "checked out of society"
The second is the older generations that have high rates of "They've been saying the world will end in five years for the past fifty years, so clearly this climate stuff isn't a problem at all" and they are behaving accordingly, as though it weren't a problem at all
You're exaggerating. No science says that society is going to collapse because of climate change in your lifetime. Maybe in your grandkids' or their grandkids' but not yours. Get real. Read a book.
Much like GPLv3 was written to counter tivoization, I’d love a GPLv4 to kill what RedHat is doing before they do irreparable the entire free software ecosystem.
In this case, is the change you imagine GPLv4 would say "you cant prevent anyone, at any point from downloading the source code from a project you create" because that is super slippery slope?
I'd also like to ask, what damage do you see this change in behavior doing to free software ecosystem ?
It seems pretty mad. Apparently Redhat doing all of their work as GPL'ed OpenSource and upstreaming everything so that everyone benefits, and anyone can take the software and build their own, sell it, etc, isn't good enough.
Is literally the only thing that would make people happy is to give away RHEL for free for people to run their production servers on?
It's the upstream source, not the source used to build RHEL. RHEL is downstream of CentOS stream. Much like linux kernel's source is available, it does not help you much.
According to Red Hat it is. If you don't believe them you can get a Developer subscription to get a RHEL ISO to compare with a CentOS Stream ISO. I imagine a lot of people, myself included, would be interested in the analysis of that.
So you do that analysis. Two downstream distros of RHEL have said that they cannot continue to offer RHEL rebuilds/updates without substantial changes. That means that it is not possible to use CentOS stream alone to build RHEL packages. You are free to do all the analysis in the world.
It may incidentally be in some cases, but isn't guaranteed to be. Things don't necessarily flow back up from RHEL to CentOS stream, and even if they do in a general sense, it may not be sufficient to build the exact same tag that RHEL uses. Someone else mentioned that they were not able to build RHEL packages from CentOS stream.
Pushing things back to CentOS stream is not a requirement of GPL. GPL's role ends once RHEL customers get the source. Do you mean evidence of CentOS stream not being enough ? The post talks about it. Rocky needs to collate sources from several places now to create 1:1 RHEL rebuilds.
> Do you mean evidence of CentOS stream not being enough ?
I think this is what I mean, yes.
The rhel trees are synced from the centos trees. If centos git trees couldnt build, rhel couldnt build. Afaics the only time this seems to be in conflict is for important and critical cve's , which are built on a rhel specific branch. After package release these branches are merged with centos, and the local rhel branches deleted and business continues as normal.
This is an attempt not to break embargo agreements with researchers who ask for it.
The damage is corporations could now determine whether they classify downstream use of open source code as "valuable" or "not valuable", and determine (according to their own rubrics) whether to effectively end the open source gravy train in their own ecosystem, or be a member of the open source community and share alike.
Despite every attempt by Red Hat employees to call out CentOS Stream as being "Red Hat sources", it is not. If they wish to participate in the open source ecosystem, they can't coerce customers (paid or not) into a particular (very proprietary) usage pattern with their software. No matter how many tens/hundreds/thousands of employees they hire to code for open source projects.
So Red Hat is saying that CentOS Stream is how RHEL is built, you are saying it is not. Can you show the difference in packages from CentOS Stream and RHEL? Rocky says they pull packages from CentOS Stream, and with their project goal remaining 1:1 binary compatibility then that must be the case.
> Problem is they have to keep moving it closer to midnight or they won't get any media attention.
It was last moved in 2020 and doesn't appear to move every year. Moreover, it has been moved back in the past. I don't get the impression this is some cynical media ploy but instead an educational effort from some well meaning experts in their respective fields trying to raise awareness and provoke action towards remedying various existential threats, including nuclear war, but also climate change and biological threats.
They are atomic scientists, so they actually aren't even experts in any of those fields. The risk of nuclear war is a geopolitical question which has nothing to do with the science behind the weapons.
Quite to the contrary, the clock is set by the Science and Security Board which seems much more focused on geopolitical questions instead of scientific. The Science and Security Board is advised by the Board of Sponsors, which does have quite a few scientists, but only in an advisory role.
Warren Buffet sometimes talks about looking for these kinds of need items, and then making sure they are well represented in your stock portfolio. He considers it better than hedge funds, since the risk (and potential reward) is greater, but the likelihood of the companies failing, even in hard times, are pretty slim.
