lberk
> Usually, if you had been unable to deliver a product in that time, it's probably about time to cancel it.
Why? Seems like demand (in this case) is sufficient enough to still launch the product. If a business has the demand for the product and sufficient capital to continue investing in an area they deem to have a viable product, isn't that their prerogative?
[0] - https://podscripts.co/podcasts/waveform-the-mkbhd-podcast/wh...
The Trabant often had wait lists of ten or more years[1][2].
The Soviet Lada often had wait times of five to ten years[3].
Even the Morgan Plus 8 had wait lists of (reportedly) a decade long as recently as 1990[4].
[1] - https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbp016 [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant [3] - https://theses.gla.ac.uk/71079/1/10390647.pdf [4] - https://www.morganville.org/history/the-waiting-list
Or is it just a longer vesting period?
[0] - https://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/05/11/facetime-standa...
systemd is part of freedesktop.org (https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/) > freedesktop.org is a completely volunteer organisation with no corporate backing or funding stream. We are a member project of Software in the Public Interest, Inc., for the purposes of holding assets.
meanwhile gnome has it's own foundation at https://www.gnome.org/foundation/ > The GNOME Foundation is a non-profit organization that furthers the goals of the GNOME Project, helping it to create a free software computing platform for the general public that is designed to be elegant, efficient, and easy to use.
To me though, one of the killer features of org-mode (compared to some of the other, SaaS product offerings) is that under the hood it's /just/ a plain-text file. You know (unlike the SaaS stuff) it'll be around for 30+ years. To me, it's incredibly valuable when building my own personal information repo/db to know it'll be around as long as I am. Not contingent on a company to remain around or profitable to keep access to my data.
[1] - https://strimzi.io/
Which is rapidly being replaced (to some degree) with things like twitter, instagram, snapchat, subreddits, streamable, and other social media/video streaming websites.
It takes next to no time or effort for somebody to roughly cut a highlight and post it to social media. Meanwhile ESPN sees diminishing returns polishing various replays and putting it in a half hour program that repeats 6+ times every morning. It's to the point every team/league even has their own social media accounts, and post the best highlights themselves. If I can see the major highlights directly from NFL's instagram account, why bother waiting halfway through sportcenter to (maybe) catch the right segment?
Please elaborate, I'm genuinely interested in why you consider them an, exception(?), or example, to your blanket rule that successful countries have power over others.
> While Estonia is successful considering its past , they are nowhere on the level of other developed Western countries.
So Estonia hasn't met your criteria for a 'successful' country (what is your criteria btw?). Is their relative success compared to neighbouring baltic states a result of them exerting force or power over their neighbours or others? Or something else?
> (yet)
Is the only thing stopping them from becoming successful, exerting force or demonstrating power over others, or are they currently suffering from an oppressive regime doing likewise to them (which is holding them back)?
I'm curious, do you include Hong Kong in that classification? How about Estonia? I'm curious what 'power' you consider those countries have, or exert, over others.