metaobserver

If it's sandboxed and accesses only the resources (network, disk etc.) you explicitly allow it to, you don't need to know how the processing is done. Spyware is not born out of legally obtained closed-source software. It's born out of corporations selling centralized SaaS, infringing on users' privacy and locking them in by design. The very same corporations championing OSS big time, because it benefits their spyware business. With thousands of naive contributors slaving off for posterity and hope that they will get noticed and hired. How ethical is that?

Granted, if you sign an NDA and pay extra, you may have the source. If this is the model you suggest, I think it's fair.

Your premise is wrong: there is nothing unethical about closed-source software. In 99% of the cases users want great software, great customer support and don't care about the source. If they really do, they can often sign an NDA and buy it. And that's fair. Free market doesn't need a pseudo-ethical middle-man.

No one is entitled to free software and should not expect others to slave off and give away fruits of their hard work for free. This entitled communist mentality is unethical.

Then why not becoming an entrepreneur and creating the environment you desire and share it with others.

Wait. Do you think it's the right thing now for the FED, ECB and other central banks to print money day and night and eradicate savings of hard working people via inflation?

I'm not sure why you bring up those companies in response to my proposal of managing your own money. But since you mention how purely evil those companies are, last time I checked they were employing real people, working on real products and services, supporting their families and contributing to the economy. I'm not a fan of big corp, bit it's not so black and white.

Do you think the government is managing your money better than you would? Aren't you concerned that big part of it funds the bureaucratic apparatus itself? Aren't you concerned that you are not paying for your own retirement and in our aging Europe 30 years from now there will be not enough working people to pay for yours? Don't you think that paying a lower tax (e.g. 25%) would leave you with more money to cover that 30keur for yourself or generously help others?

The OP was praising high taxes. If he paid lower tax, he would have more money to spend, also on helping others. Do you think it's ethical to force people into charity?

Why would you prefer the government to manage your money instead of investing and saving it yourself?

If you are into no-nonsense software design, Molecular Musings [1] written by Stefan Reinalter is also a goldmine. As is anything written or said on topic by Mike Acton, whose ramblings de-facto brought DOD into the mainstream [2][3]. Regarding good old days, remember Flipcode? ;) [4]

[1] https://blog.molecular-matters.com/ [2] https://macton.smugmug.com/Other/2008-07-15-by-Eye-Fi/n-xmKD... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0ItVEVjHc [4] https://flipcode.com/archives/articles.shtml

I recommend the new "Our Machinery" blog [1], where they write about a new engine development. Bitsquid was sold to Autodesk, rebranded Stingray and as of now seems to be discontinued [2].

[1] https://ourmachinery.com/post/ [2] https://www.autodesk.com/products/stingray/overview

I agree and think the solution would be to go back to a web-of-trust scheme where identities are transitively validated and reputation used to ensure well-behaved operation.

Maybe we don't really need those "trackbacks" and unmoderated comments from random anonymous users.

Maybe decentralized services should function strictly on a web-of-trust basis. In the end, if you have something valuable to contribute in a given domain, you have either joined a relevant organization or have contact with people in the field.

Maybe collaboration between complete strangers with unknown reputation, is not a good idea and explains why it doesn't function like that in the real world?