By the sounds of it the first point is handled by having essentially a year long probationary period, and then another two year period before someone becomes fully entrenched in the org as a full partner. This is almost certainly a long enough time to determine if someone is going to be a piss taker or not and so other instances of underperformance can be handled via supportive mechanisms.

It’s worth highlighting that performance “curves” in some companies seem to lay off reasonably productive people and preserve people who are great at gaming the system/metrics.

For conflict resolution I don’t know how they do it, but if I were in charge of this I’d probably have a dedicated body like an HR set up for this which would be democratically accountable but ultimately still deal with that kind of thing as a last resort (assuming it can’t be sorted out between team members).

Many worker co-ops have been resilient to recessions as members often choose to temporarily lower their own pay/share of profits rather than having layoffs or other similar arrangements. https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/new-economy/2009/06/06/mondragon-worker-cooperatives-decide-how-to-ride-out-a-downturn

Yeah I used to use Ubuntu as a Linux desktop a few years ago. I just came back to install Fedora on my desktop and the whole process was super easy. Even for gaming, Nvidia drivers, Steam with proton, etc. all set up with zero command line interaction, troubleshooting or even looking up guides or anything. It was intuitive and works.

Literally the hardest part was I couldn’t find my USB stick and ended up improvising with an old SD card as installation media.

The compatibility for gaming on Linux today is generally really good. The whole experience is really polished.

Some LLMs have specific jailbreaks which including in the document may cause them to act strangely in a way that is specific to the LLM. But it’s unlikely to be robust over time as they get patched/changed/etc.

Strictly speaking these all do something similar-ish at face value but actually quite different in terms of mechanism and target. I think the unpopularity of a lot of these licensing structures is also down to lack of legal verification in a lot of cases.

The illegality possibility does warrant careful consideration, but I suspect in many cases regimes which would oppose this kind of license would be making the use and enforcement of software fairly selective in any case. If it is made illegal, it’s made illegal by the respective government, not the software author or license writer.

A question is then raised as to what degree the implied open source requirement that open source should be leveraged by e.g. Nazis actually benefits developers and users. Or whether it is in effect a kind of appeasement as no doubt use which contradicts those values (and hence promotes freedom) is illegal already. Those uses which are orthogonal to that aim may be selectively targeted for arbitrary reasons such as the identity of the user.

Strictly speaking I think such provisions would be unenforceable in those circumstances anyway so doesn’t the effect kind of cancel out? Don’t get me wrong I get where you’re coming from but why would we imagine such a license has an effect in nations that are already hostile to those ideas and probably have broken judicial systems anyway?

It is ok to question the benefits of open source provisions. They are written by humans and are fallible.

I’ve been using this for a while. It’s good, lots better than postman’s annoying attempts to force you into their cloud nonsense.