Politics should never drive technical decisions unless the people involved actually understand the technology. When policy is made without that expertise, open source becomes a political slogan instead of a sustainable ecosystem.
What the European Commission is doing is the right thing, then.
It is a "call for evidence", not a directive. It can be summarized as: for our software needs, we depend too much on non-EU countries, we heard about this open source thing, will it solve our problem?
They studied the political aspect (dependence on non-EU countries), that's their job. They are now asking experts about the technical aspect.
This can never be true. Politics drives all decisions.
National politics may not. But assuming technical decisions are made on an aethereal plane above humanity is just assuming away complexity. It's the excuse of a technical team that developed something superb for no actual user.
I actually think it's a great idea to minimize government dependence on specific vendors at a policy level.
Perhaps these policies shouldn't be too detailed, but signing away future freedom ('nobody ever fired for choosing $entranched_bigcorp') should not be the path of least resistance for decision makers.
At first your comment reads as negative, but you actually like this "call for evidence" then, as they're explicitly asking for feedback about it? Not sure why it reads so negative when you're actually seemingly agreeing with the submission.
Can't you have some idea, yet want to validate this with the broader ecosystem? I frequently ask people for their opinion about stuff, even when I have my opinion. Should commissions/governments not do that? Seems like a fantasy to think your government could know everything without asking the population what they think.
This is exactly the kind of backwards thinking that pushes people against inquisition and consultation. They people in charge have a good idea of the playing field but it's always good to ask for input.
He's a genius. I mean it seriously. We brought this up in the context of AI sweeping away entire domains — IT jobs, text‑based decision‑making roles, lawyers, developers, project managers, customer support, accounting, translation, data entry, marketing content creation, and even parts of medicine and finance. What is your energy?
He's framing Zoroastrian principles from ~2000BCE in an Abrahamic dichotomy. The underpinnings of his thought have been discussed for millennium by smarter people who aren't trying to sell you an online self-help course.
If you already know all this, what stopped you from making an eye‑opening video and actually illustrating those Zoroastrian principles yourself? Calling someone derivative is easy; producing something better is not.
And if you’d really absorbed thinkers like Spinoza, Kant, Hume, or Leibniz, you’d know that reworking older metaphysical frameworks is literally how intellectual progress happens. Every major philosopher in that era built on ancient ideas — they didn’t sneer at people for revisiting them.
No, I’m not paying for his course, I just appreciate someone actually putting "fresh" (reworked) ideas into the world. And sure, everyone has a life; that’s not exactly a philosophical revelation. If “Hegelian enlightenment” is your punchline, you might want to remember that Hegel, like Heraclitus, Plotinus, Spinoza, and Kant, built entire systems by reworking older metaphysics. That’s how philosophy grows.
Dismissing someone else’s work as “illegitimate” when you haven’t reworked a single idea yourself isn’t critique: it’s just opting out of the conversation while pretending you’re above it.P.S.: for you; the brain’s prefrontal cortex literally relies on pattern‑integration, not invention from scratch.
Vibe coding… homeopathy for wannabe developers. How long until CTOs start adopting the same strategy for highly critical applications? Will they trust developers, or will they trust the speed of AI? Time is money, it’s only a matter of time before every human application is evaluated, its performance measured, and its correctness weighed against speed.
