according to the internet he has a return on investment of about 9% in the last 10 years (CAGR). msci world index (which is usually used to compare to see how well a fund performs, and has index funds which track it) made around 13.65% (so a lot higher).

So i would not put too much attention to this guys opinion, sure maybe he is taking less chances (less scary drops in the fund value that some investor don’t like) but looking at the graphs it doesn’t seems that way.

I think it’s a good to do this exercise , a lot of active investing seems like snake oil (although probably not all of it, at least according to some data and research). someone even wrote a book on the subject called “Where are the Customers’ Yachts”.

That is also a product of many variables (including software quality). maybe time to go back to the drawing board.

For this project I’m mainly testing distribution models

What do you expect to learn from those so called tests? (no offence)

The big questions in closed vs open is that there are different scenarios :

for closed source -> less competitor -> more users -> more money -> more investment in the project -> better product.

for open source -> more users want to use it and contribute to it -> better software -> more users -> more potential for making money.

The problem is that for the outcomes you want to track (more money or better software). there are so many variable involved that influence those outcomes so it’s hard to deduce that the license is improving the outcomes or making them worst.

I don’t use GIMP really but i feel like this “gimp sucks” thing you read on social media is just a good example of how social media can be overly negative.

Two review websites (g2 , capterra) have thousands of reviews and the average rating is pretty good , around 4.3-4.4 out of 5.

TBH i think you’re overthinking it, funding software development and running businesses like open source software development is often driven by self interest (even if it’s not easy to accept) . Like in software development part of it is throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. So trying to transition to more closed model is expected (some of the projects you mentioned went back to being open source).

Sure i have my opinions about software licensing but for me open source is good enough. if something like that will happen and the software is good a fork will be made. That is a acceptable risk-reward calculation to me.

They have a explanation here. they claim part of the problem was banning people who are harmless and not homophobes (they show at least one comment ).

It costs real world money to keep that data. tbf i don’t think you would find a service that does not delete inactive accounts. iirc when i did a market survey to find a new email address basically all free providers didn’t guarantee keeping your data if the account is free and inactive.

Why not provide a option to use an a desktop app?. maybe also add a flatpak. self hosting seems kinda complicated and i am not sure what are the benefits of that.

Also a demo instance would be nice.

They report a score which is not very correlated with the number of tests passed (there was a big increase in the number of tests that pass in 2023 but the score barely rose). I could not figure out how to show the score for other browsers on wpt.fyi.

Looks like a mistake. feel free to open a issue if you want to: https://github.com/vegastrike/vegastrike.github.io

Sure people might downvote here but engineers care about facts. have you tried testing this in real world setting? working with moderators? what feedback did you get?

Right now this is experimental. you can’t just use AI and automatically expect it to always do a better job then the established methods.

Any github or codeberg people can star?

Also if so many people want it. starting to fund raise money might be good. paralives is already making good money and because it is closed source there is a incentive to make modding harder (so they could sell improvements). Plus this sounds really hard and labor intensive. being able to work on it full time could help you stay motivated. even seeing people giving money might help you feel the work is really appreciated and its not just cheap words.

Maybe a survey can disprove my opinion. but i would argue the option of having ads plus paying for the ability to remove ads is something most users would accept (even if there is a vocal minority). especially if you explain that researching and developing some forms of content (documentaries, video courses, investigative journalism) can take dozen of hours and is not feasible to do without getting paid when aiming for the highest quality.

That could be better then just restricting videos (mitra could also be a open source alternative to patreon).

In blender for example you receive prioritized support when you sponsor them.

There are also various rewards (like voting on features, exclusive access to discord channels, having a sponsorship section on the website that acts as something like an ad).

There are various guides for this. but that’s the shortened version.

shlinkedin \s

seriously i am not sure if linkedin is more insightful then linkedin.

You could have a multi-paradigm programming language and use FP techniques in the code. And at least in my university there was an introduction to FP and i assume that is true for most CS degree programs.

Anyway no offence but i wonder how many of the people who upvoted you actually programmed in a purely functional programming language . i read and did the exercises for real world haskell and i don’t think purely functional programming language can create the clearest code. i can see the advantages but a language with a strong support for FP and OOP would be better IMO (Ruby?). I also can’t think of a popular FOSS project that uses a purely functional language (pandoc is an exception, but that seems like a sweet spot for FP).

But it is a cool project and i like the endeavor.

Written in PureScript

Using a purely functional niche language like that will really prevent good developers from contributing IMO.

Best you can do is accuse something of being open washing, or correct people by saying that it does not fit the OSI definition which is widely accepted (it’s based on debian guidelines) and the software is at best “partially open source”.

Having a github page with a list of problematic projects and licenses could be useful.