Or is it “comparing apples to steam engines”?
It’s that when you little to no choice we say you aren’t free. It doesn’t follow that having more choices makes you free, but it is a prerequisite. Serfs tied to the land were not free, they had a choice to stay and struggle or leave and risk wandering and starving. Not much of a choice.
Also the author seems to be worried that people will make bad decisions with their choices, and this seems not like freedom to the author.
This piece makes me uneasy, it’s like there’s this effort to justify limiting our choices and calling that freedom. I’m wondering where this is going.
You have a myriad of artificially created choices that amount to more or less the same outcome; think of a supermarket, where all products are the same high-processed food and imported vegetables. Freedom would be having a competing family-owned local shop with proximity products.
To have meaningful choice, you cannot depend of having a single homogeneous environment providing all the choices you can make; this can come from having healthy competition, or sometimes by you creating your own choices when there were none.
Every example past that was just worse for readability. I think you're right about density not being the only important metric here.
So, not much different than a search for regular expressions or a "show definition" tooltip
Being able to inspect the software you use makes you able to trust house it works, and fix it at points where it's not working; those were the first motivators for creating the FLOSS movement.
There's also the advantage that in the long term you don't depend on the company developing the software; if the company goes under, or simply stops supporting the software, you can hire a different batch of developers to carry on maintaining it. That's the reason why many big contracts require that the software vendor puts the source code under escrow.
In reality, closing the source of software only benefits the seller; everybody else benefits from having it available. With FLOSS, you get that for free.
This forced some apes to climb down the trees and depend on a diet of scavenging for meat, which happened to both increase brain size AND require improved intellect to survive, forcing the evolution of our hypertrophied symbolic brain.
Had this not happened however, other intelligent species could have filled the niche. There's no shortage of other intelligent species in our planet, not just other mammals but octopus and some birds. And then you get hive intelligence, which could equally be forced to evolve into a high problem-solving organism.
Personally, I find CSPs overly general and mired in esoteric, byzantine terminology. It's a large cognitive load to put on people to run through the glossary of terms just to talk about the problem set up. I don't think the quantum mechanic analogy is great but I can see it being much more intuitive than the obscure language of CSPs.
[0] https://www.boristhebrave.com/2021/10/31/constraint-based-ti...
Of course terminology for CSPs will get confusing when you get to represent them mathematically; but that happens to anything that you turn into math. The core concept is quite familiar and intuitive.
Is there people building the equivalent to web directories and web rings? Or search engines? What are the cultural expectations on navigating other people's published resources?