Whereas if funding is increased, that same nepotist core will suddenly discover their spirit of public service and ensure the money is spent on better delivery, instead of further enriching themselves?
Honestly, the whole funding debate for public services is often so facile and ideologically entrenched. Both sides are right: Public services _are_ invariably inefficient, and cutting funding _does_ invariably do little to increase efficiency. But neither side will accept the validity of the other's argument and so we end up with this cycle of alternating governments imposing austerity and generosity.
The NHS used to be very efficient, when it was managed largely by clinical staff. Now it has as many professional managers as clinical staff, and they all have to be paid...
Also an awful lot of the NHS fuctionality is now farmed-out to private healthcare companies, who need their rake-off.
As far as "professional managers" is concerned, these guys are mostly NHS managers, not the kind of managers that could easily transfer into a private company. Their expertise is in some obscure corner of the NHS.
Yeah, I think a key point is that Salvatore Sanfilippo, the original developer, maintainer and principle contributor[1] for 11 years, was not a founder of Redis Labs. He joined as an employee in 2015 but resigned in 2020. Perhaps he has equity in Redis Labs, but it's not clear he stands to profit at all from this switch.
Yeah, I do think the thing that will date most 20th century science fiction is that it usually has humans actively doing most things, like mining, piloting space ships, fighting battles, etc. When it seems more likely that almost all of that will be done by AIs, with humans directing them at best.
Regarding space sci-fi in particular, the image of a human manually piloting a space ship is iconic in both Western and Soviet fiction. Before the advent of real world human spaceflight era, it could be linked both to the lack of understanding of computers and other technical systems, along with the eternal popularity of the heroic explorer/captain/pilot archetype. However, even as public knowledge of space exploration has advanced, this portrayal persists in fiction.
We humans just like good engaging stories, even if they are not always realistic.
It might still make sense to pilot a ship manually for landing or proximity operations.
Even deep space maneuvers can be done manually if you know what you are doing - point ship engines in right direction and thrust for right number of seconds/minutes.
Sure, for stuff like orbital launch, some crazier Oberth effect burns or continuous thrust propulsion (ion, solar sail) you definitely want computer control.
For modern spacecraft such as Dragon capsule, almost all operations are completely automated by default: launch, landing, ISS docking. Manual overrides exist, but they are intended to be used only as a backup in case of a computer failure.
I can see an argument for manual landing on another cosmic body, given the famous story of Neil Armstrong saving Apollo 11 landing by manually landing the capsule. Though the latest generation of lunar landers can perform the procedure fully autonomously, using machine vision to find an optimal landing spot.
I tried looking up, whether manual or automated moon landing is planned for HLS program, but couldn't find anything specific. It's probably going to be some mix of both.
I think the problem the author describes is a result of short-term factors that are unlikely to affect humanity forever. Right now, technology and culture are progressing extremely quickly, relatively to any other point in human history. As a result, our understanding and our capabilities are radically different from generation to generation. Also, many problems remain unsolved and present serious, short-term challenges to our survival. Understandably therefore, our priorities frequently change, reacting both to changes in our capabilities and the most immediate threats.
However, this situation will not continue indefinitely. An advanced, post-scarcity human civilisation will (hopefully) not face constant danger of war, disease and famine, Technology will still advance, but at a slower pace, and not in ways that significantly transform day-to-day lives. Human lifespan will probably also be significantly increased. The result will be a more homogenous, stable and static society. There will still be differences, bug huge disparities of economic and societal status will no longer exist.
In this environment, having no longer to deal with a constant background of threats to their survival, it's likely that humanity will have the time and space to turn to far longer term projects. Indeed, such projects will probably be the only way for a person to imbue their life with a greater meaning in such a future society.
This is heavily reducing the human experience. Even better technology and post-scarcity aren't magic solutions to all of the insanely weird evolutionary quirks/pitfalls/problems built into our monkey brains.
Having a planet of hyper long-lived people who never have to work hard, who are constantly fed without concern, fully dependent on advanced technology sounds like the context of a YA novel. In reality, none of us are hardwired for that kind of lifestyle. Hell, we're not even hardwired for this one. We're just messily and sloppily trying to hang on as we stumble forward. Core human conflicts and oppositions and disputes and wars and existential meltdowns and all of the other things our emergent survival consciousness deal with aren't going anywhere.
Not entirely. As I understand it, that re-licensing occurred when a member of the Doom community emailed John Carmack asking him if he would be willing to release the source under the GPL. He said no problem, but there was never an official source drop with the updated license from Id Software. Carmack's email is all there is, and there's some ambiguity over whether he had the legal right to unilaterally re-license it. This official release puts its GPL status on more solid ground.
Honestly, the whole funding debate for public services is often so facile and ideologically entrenched. Both sides are right: Public services _are_ invariably inefficient, and cutting funding _does_ invariably do little to increase efficiency. But neither side will accept the validity of the other's argument and so we end up with this cycle of alternating governments imposing austerity and generosity.