Linux was built in an era of fierce resistance from the corporate world, so what is there to save today when everything runs or touches OSS in one way or another and most decent developers will make an OSS contribution, to claim on their CVs?
As much of a fan of Open Source as I am, I've come to realise the OSS has killed indie development. Many OSS projects are built for free to show as proof of skills when applying for jobs, with the outliers being cash cows for major cloud service providers.
In the “old world” cities like London, Paris, Berlin and others are facing the eact same problems, with or without those overcrowded, overpriced buses you mentioned.
I live in London. Many people don't own cars. Many who moved here with a car give up their cars. Working public transport systems leave everyone better off.
Public transport in London is incredibly good, I'm always amazed. But then it's NOT run by 5 competing companies that couldn't care less about linked up journeys.
On the other hand, transit in Tokyo and Osaka is run by a number of public and private companies, some of which compete with each other, and linked-up journeys are no problem at all. It's totally doable.
Japanese companies do not have much of a reputation for red-in-tooth-and-claw competition (e.g. the "gentleman's agreement" about advertised car horsepower).
Your cities are built for mass transit. Ours are not, owing to the enormous landmass we utilize in the ways that we do. This is not a simple problem to solve by just adding more trains and bus units.
I live in London and commute 10 miles each way daily. It takes me ~45 minutes in rush hour. Driving the same distance is, in the middle of the night, 30-40 min (in rush hour you can be stuck simply until it's over). Total cost is also lower at 2000 pounds a year for round trips on my route (which would cover only insurance and gas at best).
Also, I haven't taken a bus to work, ever. Tube serves 5 million passengers a day and whilst sometimes crowded, seems to be scaling pretty well.
Racket is unlike many other programming languages, firstly it's a lisp. Secondly, it features a builtin language framework that allows you to seamlessly interop different languages through racket.
Once you learn racket you realize that most other languages are just macros in racket, or a #lang in racket, and that their unique implementations are mostly quite wasteful, as they make interop hard.
I would say financial freedom is not having to trade labor to survive. From that perspective, responsible spending doesn't lead to financial freedom, but ownership of capital that pays for living expenses.
For example, someone who pays their living expenses by collecting rent from property they own is financially free. A software engineer who has to go to work 9-5 or starve is not financially free, even if they are responsibly spending and free of debt.
First of all, it's Silicon Valley. Check your ethics at the door.
Secondly, it's not illegal if it's not against the laws of a country (and in this case, if the crown prince of a monarchy orders something, that's as close to legal as it gets). You could say that it's immoral, but that's a different statement, and you shouldn't conflate "illegal" with "immoral".
If a king decrees it inside an absolute monarchy, it's not a crime. That's literally how absolute monarchies work--the monarch has absolute and unaccountable power.
I disagree because positivism is not the smartest legal theory in my view. We all know Godwin's law, but nazi crimes is probably the best example of how something done by people with absolute power was considered and persecuted as a crime.
