Despite the (sometimes valid) criticism floating around RMS and the FSF, we can't deny RMS has been proven right more than once.

Following up on his "The Free Software Foundation is dying" post, Drew DeVault has been working on the messaging part of his recommendations. The result is not bad at all!

Very good interview. She really point out the main issues. Quite a lot of the current debate is poisoned by simplistic extrapolations based on sci-fi. This distracts everyone from the very real and present problems.

Excellent opinion piece. Sure, "A.I." is a tool, but who is wielding that tool currently? Whom needs is it designed to fulfill? This is currently very much of a problem. The comparison with McKinsey although surprising is an interesting thought.

Also I appreciate the clarification on the Luddites movement... they were not anti-technology.

Since I've seen this argument floating around more than once, it's nice to have a properly done rebuttal of it. This is nicely done, listing the own bias of the author, still in the end that shows the logical flaw of the argument.

I don't necessarily agree with the fine points in the proposed actions. That said the diagnosis is unfortunately very true I think.

This ecosystem suffers from the same warts and doesn't seem to make any progress... lack of transparency, "we know better" mentality, tight coupling, lack of communication. This is especially problematic for something like a browser.

This is an interesting move. There are good reasons for it in this article. Also some I'm less inclined to take at face value but still, worth keeping in mind.

This is a very concerning for C... and it drifts apart from C++ further. The old "C as a subset of C++" position is less and less valid. Very unfortunate.

Training sets are obviously already contaminated... now it'll be a race of hiding such mistake under the carpet with human interventions. That'll be a boon for misinformation. That's what we get for a useless large models arm race.

OK, not a perfect article, I think there are a couple of blind spots in the reasoning (I doubt all the estimates were as systematically bloated as presented here). Still, it's another interesting account of the problems created by the cargo cult agile. It indeed seems to resonate with the fact that the tech sector is very hype driven. A lot of useless work then ensues.

That's a good set of questions to ask ourselves when in contact with a product claiming the use of "AI".

Lengthy but thorough. The evidences are now getting much clearer. Admittedly, the most worrying bit I find is that getting off the social media wagon might not help the impacted people to get better... indeed they might still be isolated if everyone else is still trapped on social media.

Definitely agree with this, Github benefited from a powerful network effect and now a good chunk of important projects are "trapped" there. This can't be good long term.

Excellent response to an article full of misconceptions about the Agile approaches. This turns in a good summary of cargo cult agile we see in the wild and the original intent. I especially like how it points out approaches to properly integrate UX as well.

Very good essay on why we shouldn't look down on the Luddite. They had plenty of their questioning right and it's actually pervasive now. We use the term as libel only because back then they lost...

Finally out of Google Docs it seems. Better version for sharing around. Still an interesting list of case studies and opinions around SAFe. I learned a few things, I didn't realize it's creation was so disconnected from the pre-existing agile community. It all seems to confirm my opinion that it's better to stay away from it though. The few organizations I know of which use it are clearly very much in a command and control mode. This is going backwards.

This feels odd to be hosted on a Google Doc, but this is an interesting list of case studies and opinions around SAFe. I learned a few things, I didn't realize it's creation was so disconnected from the pre-existing agile community. It all seems to confirm my opinion that it's better to stay away from it though. The few organizations I know of which use it are clearly very much in a command and control mode. This is going backwards.

Interesting research explained. Apparently it's more than time to put the catharsis hypothesis to rest.

Very interesting FOSDEM talk which I see as part of the debate about "Open Source as just licenses"/"Post Open Source". This shows very well how the OSD is very narrow and that their should be a better alignment between what is labelled FOSS and the actual customs. This is something which licenses alone can't capture.