This is interesting — it put immigration limits directly up for a popular vote.

For those voting to strictly limit citizenship, I wonder if they are supporting: a permanent underclass without full rights? or that basic needs to be more expensive? or that widespread automation will soon meet basic labor needs?

addendum: thank you kgwgk

The vote was not about limiting citizenship. It was about limiting the number of residents - if anything the effect would have been to _reduce_ that permanent underclass with fewer rights.

By failing to provide adequate treatment early in a disease course, further exacerbations and comorbidities can appear, and these can become their own chronic conditions requiring further ongoing treatment.

This is a great answer.

Perhaps more people are using AI as part of an editorial process that is largely driven by what they wish to convey but where they have stopped fighting the AI on its preferred style. It’s supremely annoying when AI updates your prose with its own formulation despite plenty of instructions otherwise. Too often AIs mangle meaning which can be especially worrisome as it’s not easy to catch subtle word/grammar changes that dramatically shift meaning. Overall though, defects aside, for me, and only very recently, it’s been more helpful than not. I think AIs will continue to improve in this regard and be better editorial partners. For competent writings, it won’t replace human authorship or expert review.

Specifically, I’ve recently used ChatGPT for legal/administrative writing where the AI seems to be trained on a large corpus and seems to know the conventions and vocabulary well; a lawyer who reviewed the work had important corrections. Before AI, I would have sought model filings and have had less success at emulating the genre. So it’s lowered time/cost somewhat but it takes lots of diligence. By default, current AI outputs seems intelligible but are still really far off the mark. I’ve found a structured interview is a good way to start rather than jumping into draft generation.

Attribution requirements in a free software setting should be viewed as a symmetric property: however you treat incorporated contributions should be a guide (upper bound) for how your own attribution is handled. Symmetry among contributors is a founding principle of Debian licensing requirements, and with respect to legal notices, also seen in the Apache 2.0 (via NOTICE clause) license.

The Free Software Foundation sometimes went further than the Apache Foundation with their About dialog or textual notices for end users, so they would learn about their affirmative rights. The purpose of this "prominent but reasonable" preservation requirement is to retain this end user advocacy. Specifically, the GPL copyright contains a prologue which the FSF wished to broadly distribute. This badgeware stuff is a decade old abuse of this end user advocacy strategy.

An otherwise permissive license with a prominent but symmetric end user notification might be a helpful addition to OSI license options, but care is needed so it is compatible with GPLv3, reasonable to textual or embedded environments, and precludes stupid badgeware nonsense. Standard approaches and bill of materials could improve the state of the art.

This factoring of a market to enable competition by centralizing minimal infrastructure seems the bedrock of best governmental practice. Are there other examples to lean on? How do we turn this into common knowledge?

Why do these open source foundations (like Mozilla) have direct products anyway? Why not a certification? Who should the users be and why? Who are the collaborators and competitors? These are hard questions.

At least with free software licenses we can separate the copyrights from the trademarks, and exercise the right to fork if a trademark owner is captured and misbehaves.

For IL residents the policy requires collection and retention of your biomarkers. Presumably there is a law enforcement exclusion implicitly or explicitly, eg search via administrative warrant.

I liked that you picked a service that has a relatively low barrier to entry. The real asset are local operators and referrals. Making them more efficient without being controlled by a big company would be a boon for everyone involved.

Consider being a platform coop with regional operators as members. See https://platform.coop/

Yes, the barrier here is the desire to study and pass the exam. If willing, you are up and running relatively quickly - but only as a technician under someone else's operating license. To get the operator license (eg to be a full on pest control company) requires 2+ year documented experience and another set of exams.

The operating license holder is also on the hook for legal action if (when) things go wrong.

"Control" is interesting and I have found in all trades that people value their freedom. The good companies don't monitor employees too tightly, and are rewarded with loyalty and longer tenures generally. Of course you have to run a good recruitment and referral process to find the good people!

I’ve never heard of platform Co-ops. Cool! Lots of people predicted that a beloved local coffee shop was doomed to fail when the workers got a loan and bought it to run as a completely flat cooperative. It’s been a few years and they are absolutely killing it. I’d love to see the tech version of that.

There is still much to be worked out, but some smart people are working on it. See also https://e2c.how/

Thanks! Cool initiative. I’ll look into it.

The software for businesses like this is tightly intertwined with operations. Hence, it's less of a SaaS and could be more like a franchise model.

I agree a lightweight franchise would be attractive, though I don't like most franchising options due to the fees and lack of equity build up for the operator.

Some franchising platforms (window cleaning is a good example) don't offer much beyond sales and marketing support and some nicely designed uniforms. There's not much to window cleaning other than basic equipment, so a person's route can easily be disrupted by a new entrant who doesn't have the franchise rake to contend with.

There's a model between employment, ownership and franchising that will probably emerge as sales, marketing, ops gets easier technically.