Let's just call miming physical switch travel and movement what it is: skeuomorphic animation

And just like its design counterpoint, while some may enjoy the aesthetic, it's actually superfluous and we've mostly moved on.

I get it, it's visual, it's easy to show one's boss domain knowledge; it doesn't do anything for accessibility and the feel (dependable repeatable ui workflow).

Thank you for your reply. I'm usually skeptical of visual paradigms but I'm not trying to be critical.

Looking at flow-based programming, it looks like it could help in visualizing and understanding asynchronous systems that wouldn't be so intuitive from a code listing. In that way, I suppose it would force a functional style as well. So maybe good for gluing those parts of one's apps together.

I did look at the code examples; attributes and code wrapped in json. Obviously greppable, but then if one expected a learner to grep, version diff, author tests?, linting?, etc. they still must dip into and learn regular dev tools. I don't know if Flyde is supposed to eventually subsume that other functionality or if it is a higher scripting layer used in conjunction, and so must eventually be learned anyway.

Or is Flyde just trying to introduce an easier coding path in order to bypass the more superfluous parts of software dev such as tabs vs spaces, editor choice, oop vs functional vs procedural vs whatever.

It's not about that.

Open Source is more like a designation. It is an agreed upon set of requirements that, if you change a requirement, it is something else. This is important.

Some things have legally protected designations such as 'ice cream'. Ice Cream has specific meaning in industry and even a grading system. If someone wants to make a cheaper product than the lowest grade of ice cream, they can't call it ice cream, they have to call it something like: frozen dairy dessert.

This makes it easy for people understand what they are actually getting and paying for.

I wouldn't get indignant about mandating english language definitions. I would be indignant that ai companies are not fulfilling the requirements to call it open source and are providing a cheaper product than the abilities that an actual open source model would provide.

JK Rowling exploiting workers is a straw man and sidesteps the point.

To some people what I wrote will be a truism and to others it will beg the question.

I see what side that fell on for you and that's good, I'm not citing anything, so definitely question my reasoning. But don't think for a second that producing a handful of books people ended up wanting can generate that amount of value.

In the case of Rowling, she was also executive producer of several Harry Potter films and was no doubt a benificiary of motion picture accounting to a greater or lesser degree. She controls charities and who knows how many shell companies and trusts to hide and manipulate wealth. That's what you have access to at that scale of rich.

Furthermore, if she wasn't cooking the books, hiding and differentiating wealth for tax benefit, placing herself in position to extract more wealth, then she would be the stupid one among her rich peer group and would quickly find herself like one of those lottery winners who are back to being poor and none the wiser 5 years later.

Another truism is that it sounds fun to be rich, but it probably isn't very.

Another truism is that I'm sure we'd all rather suffer being rich than be poor.

It seems likely that the only way to become a billionaire is through worker exploitation, collusion, cheating the system through tax evation and asset laundering, etc.

I think politico-economic interference is the crux of the problem.

For example, someone with $10 million are trying to maintain their lifestyle, they want to know what stocks, bonds, and certificates, and real estate to invest in.

Someone with $100 million are trying to leverage through venture capital, joining corporate boards, owning platforms, etc.

Someone with $1+ billion will find that the most cost effective way to keep and gain wealth is buying lobbyists, campaign donations, starting and controlling some non-profits that have tax and spending incentives, getting favors by giving politician's kids high profile jobs, and any other innumberable political grift that maintain their wealth status and that only really work at that scale.

I wouldn't care if billionaires were just hoarding some money. But they are not, and all this while they pay bad wages and have even shoved off the cost of training for their jobs onto society and the labor force who have to speculate and pay for their own training.

Because, someone doesn't just create millions of dollars of value, teams of people do. And in the current system someone does get to choose where to cut the "sandwich" and they get to choose which side they take. And with negligible repercussion, they choose the largest portion. It's basically incentive to steal. It's basically taking credit for someone else's work. But it's taking their share of wealth.