Wrong.

The lawsuit isn't for continued access to work; the entity that initially hired him and agreed to the terms had an opportunity to negotiate continued/expanded access either before the contract was executed or in the intervening three years. The lawsuit is because the entity elected to ignore the previously negotiated contract. Intentional or accidental is for a court to decide.

If the award for breach of contract was simply the fee that would have been due, then there would be no incentive to bother honoring contracts -- you could simply pretend it didn't exist, not pay until someone noticed, and then get off with the same cost as you would have paid had both parties been diligent. No, lawsuits relating to breaches of contract are for additional damages (and courts subsequently award said damages) to punish the offending party as a deterrent to those who would shirk the responsibilities of a contract in the first place.

The concept relies on an autonomous lander arriving well in advance of any inhabitants in order to build their habitat.

I'm not saying that makes their approach any easier or harder, just that relying on an automated construction process allows integrity verification prior to sending anyone.

Also, so you're aware: the contest required use of 3D printing, not wrenches and hands. Again, not a judgement on which is better, but it's important to understand the constraints involved here.

I know the webpage was a bit tough to read, but they do say how they propose to combat that: via a thin membrane.

... What? You don't change programmer attitudes by restricting choices of the consumer.

That's like saying counter-top mixers stay should be under-powered so that the attitudes of recipe creators will conform.

Why do we need to trust them to do anything? Let the market decide: if it's an awful experience (see: Ouya), it either won't last or Apple will pour resources into trying to make it suck less -- which based on their track record is pretty much a coin toss.

Tangentially, why do people get so caught up in issues of "trust" and fanboidom with these things? If something sucks, let it suck. If it's awesome, partake.

Buzzword bingo started: you have 3 squares so far. Are you a fresh MBA grad? WTF does 'dynamic developer environment' even mean in this context? Fuck that, what does it mean period?

Just... what? A start-up with no clue on what they want to do? Why did they form a 'start-up'?

You've described a situation where salary-, hourly-, task-based contracts already provide a solution. Adding the ability to 'watch a developer code' add nothing to shops that need to go from A to B to C.

Again... What? If you need someone to 'figure out things' and watching someone code as your 'lower cost' option is your 'best' option, you're fucked. Full stop. When a task is so difficult that you need to find someone to teach you how to solve a problem while watching them type, congratulations: you've just spent their fee *and* at least one person's salary/time to watch them type. And you may not even have a solution. 'Hard problems' of this sort are not something that can be solved in discrete 'code watching' sessions.

There are eleven million task-based software development websites. Go find one of them. They'll be cheaper than a task-based service that also requires a developer to surrender a view of their screen.

Gah, I meant task-based contract is the 'uber-ification' -- not hourly.

Hourly contract is/was the 'Uber-ification' of software development. This is nothing more than a gimmick.

Anyone who has enough knowledge to observe someone code and understand what's the developer is doing has better things they could be spending their time on. Anyone who doesn't have that knowledge won't be able to tell the difference between the developer toiling on the work they were contracted for or on a personal pet project.

Just... What?

We could just ... 'thin things out'. Sure. And let's not forget that Venus could 'house enough solar' to export.

Do you even read what you type?

You are needed in here, stat!

Um. So, without stock, how does one determine ownership? Or are you suggesting we'd be better off with a series of monolithic business entities owned by a single person?

A modern naval mine, for instance, is deployed and waits for an activation to autonomously engage targets. Does that meet your criteria?

While there is some room to nitpick his examples, they're largely relevant despite your dismissal of them -- and that's part of the problem. For example, an autonomous homing artillery shell might not fit your definition as it requires human interaction to initially deploy it, but once deployed, it chooses its own targets. The same is true for many other potential uses of autonomous weapon systems, but you seem hung up on novel new usages or extended periods between deployment and effect.

At best, the autonomous/non-autonomous weapon line is a blurred smudge on the road in our collective past. I'll agree that there's a larger potential for wider use going forward, but these tools are not new.

I wish he had led with that one and saved me 5 minutes.

Or you could read TFA and see that it's a 5Mbps down/1Mbps up connection.

Because maybe you need ordinance delivered to an area with contested airspace.