Why is this on slashdot? A couple reasons are obvious. When I was born, computers were still room-sized and communication was by phone. Now children are growing up with a different digital landscape. Tracking the way that young people perceive the world and act upon it, is difficult for previous generations to fully grasp. Observing the preparation and final thoughts of a mediocre millenial digital celebrity (a celebrity nonetheless, regardless of the domain), is a doorway into that mental state.

This is a practical answer to interesting thought experiments, given the resources of a modern age. If you had a loyal audience, what (if anything) would you say to them posthumously? how would you distribute it? when would you decide to produce this content or how might you tragically fail to accomplish what you wanted to?

Why is this on slashdot? You're being a lazy thinker, as usual.

> With a massively smaller population size that strategy can actually be used.

Short term trends do not necessarily predict long term trends and rarely contradict historical trends. Large populations are masses of smaller populations. You're over-generalizing as a crutch to support bad reasoning, to put it simply.

> Do you even realize how completely stupid your argument is?

History acts as a lens to observe human behavior. We literally have data to visualize modern migrations. There is no argument per se because the topic is about the future. I'll side with a prediction that supports human agency.

> How does the study differentiate arrogance from confidence?

Confidence is an element of arrogance. The distinction is irrelevant to the nature of the study.

> You really drank the Kool Aid, eh ?

What are you referencing? It reads like some inside joke to yourself.

You restated what I asserted. As I said, it's useful to JPMC for whatever purpose they want it to serve.

> Since the creators control the blockchain and its code (code is law), doesn't that mean that in theory they can make up whatever prices or amounts owed they want?

It looks like you didn't even understand the summary. It mentions JPM Morgan's private blockchain implementation. Ofc they can interpret what's on it however they want.

What they have done is create a reliable (traceable, durable, auditable, etc) way to do promissory note-based transactions. This has nothing to do with circumventing regulations. JPMC doesn't even joke about that internally. This small feat does have a lot to do with continuing trading when there are no humans involved for time-sensitive opportunities.

> Cut/Paste of specific parts of something existing, without actually adding anything, is not transformative.

Editing is an existing and recognized industry. It's specifically transformative to edit down movies for content.

This is pretty late in the game.

Experian's FreeCreditReport.com sold the information to 28 different companies before you hit submit in 2008. This was well known within the company (I was a contractor for awhile). If you collect it yourself, then send it off to a bunch of companies, is that much different?

> I don't view this as "literal nothing", and I don't think you really do either.

Meta is a marketing scam (vaporware) that has been informed by projects like Star Citizen, nothing more.
I believe it wholly, regardless of what you think.

> I wondered how well this strategy would work for a so-so game,

This was done to try to push Blizzard's Heroes of the Storm into a popular competitive game. The strategy failed hard, because of the unpopular gameplay mechanics (a whole different topic).

Lost Ark has a similar problem. The numbers will crumble after a few weeks as it's a 20 hour intro to Korean style grinding, which requires an extreme time commitment (to be gracious) for access to additional content. It's basically Lineage or DFO, which many players are too young to remember. The current popularity is explained by the spend behind it and an audience of gamers burnt out by the same reskinned games over and over again. Nobody has seen a popular and modern isometric MMO in decades, so LA seems like it should be more than it is.

> Why is this even a question?

There are corporations who have battled against studies that show their products, industry, and infrastructure cause cancer for almost 100 years.
From the brain cancer scares of the 90s to the known Leukemia risks associated with locality to high traffic roads (ie Freeways) to Erin Brockovich to Monsanto, the world has suffered all manner of interference and FUD from companies trying to defend themselves from liability...even when it wasn't necessary.

European countries and multinational organizations have dared to start to look for patterns again, which will likely bring up a whole new war on science to push that cancers are an inherent medical mystery that are largely random. Luckily, data is abundant and easily accessible, which will make it much harder than decades past.

> If I tape a note to my rock that "Limitation of Liability", that doesn't mean I'm not liable. That's just a statement from the author, it really just means he wishes he wasn't liable.

The liability is in the hands of the primary actor. The author didn't grab the software/update and apply it. I definitely can tape a note to a rock to limit my liability, when someone else is the one picking up the rock and throwing it at their own car.

> But they will by default because projects are set up based on good faith

Do you think the project is still "setup in good faith now"? This "good faith" idea is imaginary, because it helps sooth your angst...like the TSA*, I would guess.
I've had projects make updates that break functionality I use or the entire application MANY times over the decades. The why is irrelevant.

> This is pure blaming of the victim.

Some eventualities are people's own fault. In this case, it fits.

> The sabotage was the bad code injected into the library, that is not in dispute

That's an overly broad statement. "bad code" is a meaningless phrase.

> These are not analogous at all, you are merely asserting they are for malignant reasons

That was not an analogue. The point was that ethical considerations do not protect against reality. The reality is that there is no guarantee about functionality AND it specifically mentions this in the license.

I understand that it might be frustrating for those who expect more, as a form of self-entitlement. This isn't particularly interesting, but it speaks toward a strange behavior found in the US I can only label "culture of informed consent".

In American, there always seems to be outrage, panic, and ridiculous overstatement of fact, when it is revealed that individuals were not informed about an eventuality that befell them. *911, school shootings, COVID hysteria, lead laden water, (et al that Billy Joel sang about) all follow the same pattern of "but nobody told us" when it was obvious and spoken about outside mainstream media for years. Nobody (individual or company) likes to look like an idiot, but there's good money in it, so it's a safe refrain. When it's a big issue that media has been widely scaring about for decades ("the big one coming" in California), well that's just unlucky.

> In common law jurisdictions, the developer has either a duty of "reasonable care" or "slight care", depending on the jurisdiction.

Except the developer does not have that duty, regardless of your implication. Specifically, the license provides additional protections.

> 8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory,
            whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise,
            unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly
            negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be
            liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special,
            incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a
            result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the
            Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill,
            work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all
            other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor
            has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

Re: Cancellation

> must be within one of the restitution-participating stateslisted above,Arkansas, Kansas,
Michigan, Rhode Island, South Carolina,Vermont,West Virginia, or associated with a military addressed postal code

So this isn't even across all loans (as the summary implies), as you have to meet some state-mailing-address criteria.

While there's a bunch of discussion about public education, these loans were largely issued to people enrolling in unaccredited institutions.

The author made a code change that someone else was using at their own discretion. If any user doesn't like the functionality, they don't have to use it. Taking in updates that assume backward compatibility is self-sabotage. At the same time, if they aren't looking when crossing the street, there is no guarantee of safety. That's the ethical world.