April 2019 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Brookings Report: "Credit denial in the age of AI"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Report <https://www.brookings.edu/search/?post_type=research> Credit denial in the age of AI Aaron Klein <https://www.brookings.edu/experts/aaron-klein/> Thursday, April 11, 2019 *Editor's Note:* /This report is part of "//A Blueprint for the Future of AI <https://www.brookings.edu/series/a-blueprint-for-the-future-of-ai/>//," a series from the Brookings Institution that analyzes the new challenges and potential policy solutions introduced by artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies./ Banks have been in the business of deciding who is eligible for credit for centuries. But in the age of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and big data, digital technologies have the potential to transform credit allocation in positive as well as negative directions. Given the mix of possible societal ramifications, policymakers must consider what practices are and are not permissible and what legal and regulatory structures are necessary to protect consumers against unfair or discriminatory lending practices. In this paper, I review the history of credit and the risks of discriminatory practices. I discuss how AI alters the dynamics of credit denials and what policymakers and banking officials can do to safeguard consumer lending. AI has the potential to alter credit practices in transformative ways and it is important to ensure that this happens in a safe and prudent manner. […] Continua qui: https://www.brookings.edu/research/credit-denial-in-the-age-of-ai/

April 16, 2019

Programming for the Expression of Ideas

by Giacomo Tesio

https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Expression-of-Ideas The computer revolution is a revolution in the way we think and in the way we express what we think.

April 16, 2019

Former Mozilla exec: Google has sabotaged Firefox for years

by Giacomo Tesio

https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has-sabotaged-fire… Johnathan Nightingale, a former General Manager and Vice President of the Firefox group at Mozilla, described these issues as "oopses." "When I started at Mozilla in 2007 there was no Google Chrome, and most folks we spoke with inside [Google] were Firefox fans," Nightingale recollected in a Twitter thread on Saturday. "When Chrome launched things got complicated, but not in the way you might expect. They had a competing product now, but they didn't cut ties, break our search deal - nothing like that. In fact, the story we kept hearing was, 'We're on the same side. We want the same things'," the former Mozilla exec said. "I think our friends inside Google genuinely believed that. At the individual level, their engineers cared about most of the same things we did. Their product and design folks made many decisions very similarly, and we learned from watching each other. "But Google as a whole is very different than individual googlers," Nightingale said. "Google Chrome ads started appearing next to Firefox search terms. Gmail & [Google] Docs started to experience selective performance issues and bugs on Firefox. Demo sites would falsely block Firefox as 'incompatible'," he said. "All of this is stuff you're allowed to do to compete, of course. But we were still a search partner, so we'd say 'hey what gives?' And every time, they'd say, 'oops. That was accidental. We'll fix it in the next push in 2 weeks.' "Over and over. Oops. Another accident. We'll fix it soon. We want the same things. We're on the same team. There were dozens of oopses. Hundreds maybe?" "I'm all for 'don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence' but I don't believe Google is that incompetent. I think they were running out the clock. We lost users during every oops. And we spent effort and frustration every clock tick on that instead of improving our product. We got outfoxed for a while and by the time we started calling it what it was, a lot of damage had been done," Nightingale said. [...] In July 2018, Mozilla Program Manager Chris Peterson accused Google of intentionally slowing down YouTube performance on Firefox. He revealed that both Firefox and Edge were superior when loading YouTube content when compared to Chrome, and in order to counteract this performance issue, Google switched to using a JavaScript library for YouTube that they knew wasn't supported by Firefox.

April 16, 2019

Amazon Workers Are Listening In on Amazon Echo Users - The Atlantic

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Behind Every Robot Is a Human Why Amazon workers sometimes listen in on users’ conversations with Alexa, and what it tells us about the technology that powers “smart” devices SIDNEY FUSSELL APR 15, 2019 https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/04/amazon-workers-eaves… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

April 16, 2019

Re: [nexa] The Tragedy of "The Tragedy of the Commons" - Scientific American Blog Network

by Stefano Quintarelli

ho letto l'articolo, ed anche living within lmits, immigration dilemma - avoiding the tragedy of the commons e, sul fronte opposto, governing the commons. cmq. trovo che l'idea iniziale sia tanto aprezzabile quanto l'evoluzione del suo pensiero sia semplicistico fino a divenire esecrabile. (come ad esempio quando ritiene che l'universalismo sia un errore e che ci voglia un altruismo discriminatorio per cui lo stato che ha dei problemi si deve arrangiare) pero' magari mi ricordo male... in the immigration mdilemma fa un esempio sul fatto che in una assicurazione, quando tutti sono assicurati, l'assicurazione diventa uno commons ed i manager devono stare attenti ad evitare sfruttamenti indebiti - ovvero devono gestire il commons (letto al volo da una delle orcchiete fatte ad una pagina, mica mi ricordo tutto, eh ;-) ciao!, s. On 15/04/2019 19:17, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > ma hai letto l’articolo di Hardin, Stefano? > I tuoi commenti mi inducono a sospettare di no. > > Hardin infatti in maniera assolutamente apodittica > scrive che i commons non possono funzionare - punto. > > jc > > > > (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) > >> On 15 Apr 2019, at 18:12, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: >> >> non disse nemmeno "senza gendarmi a verificare il rispetto delle quote" >> >> su questo principio, ogni affermazione puo' essere confutata cambiando il dominio di riferimento. >> anche 2+2=4... >> >> ciao, s. >> >>> On 15/04/2019 18:03, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >>> lui non disse: “senza management”. >>> (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) >>>> On 15 Apr 2019, at 17:42, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: >>>> >>>> non mi pare pero' avesse sbagliato... >>>> nel senso che un commons senza management fa quella fine. >>>> no ? >>>> >>>>> On 15/04/2019 16:49, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >>>>> The Tragedy of the /Tragedy of the Commons/ >>>>> The man who wrote one of environmentalism’s most-cited essays was a racist, eugenicist, nativist and Islamaphobe—plus his argument was wrong >>>>> * By Matto Mildenberger >>>>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/matto-mildenberger/> on >>>>> April 23, 2019 >>>>> * >>>>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-t… >>>>> (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> nexa mailing list >>>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>>> >>>> -- >>>> reserve your meeting with me at http://cal.quintarelli.it >> >> -- >> reserve your meeting with me at http://cal.quintarelli.it > -- reserve your meeting with me at http://cal.quintarelli.it

April 15, 2019

Re: [nexa] The Tragedy of "The Tragedy of the Commons" - Scientific American Blog Network

by Alberto Cammozzo

Sull'argomento ha già scritto egregiamente Elinor Ostrom, che tanto ha lavorato proprio sulla gestione dei commons. Ad esempio: Ostrom, Elinor. “Coping with Tragedies of the Commons.” /Annual Review of Political Science/ 2, no. 1 (June 1999): 493–535. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493. <https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493> Ciao, Alberto On 15/04/2019 19:48, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > faccio però presente che è proprio > il superamento (o, se volete, l’arricchimento) della dicotomia proprietà pubblica o priorità privata > che è alla base del concetto di “commons”. > > E Hardin lì proprio non ci arriva. > > jc > > > (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) > >> On 15 Apr 2019, at 19:33, Enrico Nardelli <nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it> wrote: >> >> >> Scusate se mi intrometto, ma spinto dalla curiosità, prima della mia precedente risposta avevo letto (ammetto, velocemente) l'articolo originale di Hardin, ed avevo notatno che contiene questo passaggio (alla fine del paragrafo "Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons") >> >> ---- >> What shall we do? We have several options. We might sell them off as private property. We might keep them as public property, but allocate the right to enter them. The allocation might be on the basis of wealth, by the use of an auction system. It might be on the basis of merit, as defined by some agreed-upon standards. It might be by lottery. Or it might be on a first-come, first-served basis, administered to long queues. These, I think, are all the reasonable possibilities. They are all objectionable. But we must choose--or acquiesce in the destruction of the commons that we call our National Parks. >> ---- >> >> Non mi sembra che sia una preclusione assoluta ad un possibile regolazione. Anzi, invoca una qualche forma di regolazione dei commons, pena la loro distruzione. In altre parole, mi pare che dica che i commons non possono funzionare (cioè saranno distrutti) se non si decidono delle regole. >> >> Poi, come ha giustamente osservato l'altro Stefano (Zacchiroli), c'è chi ha usato questa posizione per sostenere che la scelta è la privatizzazione dei beni comuni, ma questa è un'altra storia... >> >> Ciao, Enrico >> >> >> >> Il 15/04/2019 19:17, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: >>> ma hai letto l’articolo di Hardin, Stefano? >>> I tuoi commenti mi inducono a sospettare di no. >>> Hardin infatti in maniera assolutamente apodittica >>> scrive che i commons non possono funzionare - punto. >>> jc >>> (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) >>>> On 15 Apr 2019, at 18:12, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: >>>> >>>> non disse nemmeno "senza gendarmi a verificare il rispetto delle quote" >>>> >>>> su questo principio, ogni affermazione puo' essere confutata cambiando il dominio di riferimento. >>>> anche 2+2=4... >>>> >>>> ciao, s. >>>> >>>>> On 15/04/2019 18:03, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >>>>> lui non disse: “senza management”. >>>>> (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) >>>>>> On 15 Apr 2019, at 17:42, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> non mi pare pero' avesse sbagliato... >>>>>> nel senso che un commons senza management fa quella fine. >>>>>> no ? >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15/04/2019 16:49, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >>>>>>> The Tragedy of the /Tragedy of the Commons/ >>>>>>> The man who wrote one of environmentalism’s most-cited essays was a racist, eugenicist, nativist and Islamaphobe—plus his argument was wrong >>>>>>> * By Matto Mildenberger >>>>>>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/matto-mildenberger/> on >>>>>>> April 23, 2019 >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-t… >>>>>>> (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> nexa mailing list >>>>>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>>>>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>>>>> -- >>>>>> reserve your meeting with me at http://cal.quintarelli.it >>>> -- >>>> reserve your meeting with me at http://cal.quintarelli.it >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nexa mailing list >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> -- EN >> >> ===================================================================== >> Prof. Enrico Nardelli >> Dipartimento di Matematica - Universita' di Roma "Tor Vergata" >> Via della Ricerca Scientifica snc - 00133 Roma >> tel: +39 06 7259.4204 fax: +39 06 7259.4699 >> mobile: +39 335 590.2331 e-mail: nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it >> home page: http://www.mat.uniroma2.it/~nardelli >> blog: http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/blog/enardelli/ >> http://link-and-think.blogspot.it/ >> ===================================================================== >> -- >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

April 15, 2019

Re: [nexa] The Tragedy of "The Tragedy of the Commons" - Scientific American Blog Network

by J.C. DE MARTIN

faccio però presente che è proprio il superamento (o, se volete, l’arricchimento) della dicotomia proprietà pubblica o priorità privata che è alla base del concetto di “commons”. E Hardin lì proprio non ci arriva. jc (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) > On 15 Apr 2019, at 19:33, Enrico Nardelli <nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it> wrote: > > > Scusate se mi intrometto, ma spinto dalla curiosità, prima della mia precedente risposta avevo letto (ammetto, velocemente) l'articolo originale di Hardin, ed avevo notatno che contiene questo passaggio (alla fine del paragrafo "Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons") > > ---- > What shall we do? We have several options. We might sell them off as private property. We might keep them as public property, but allocate the right to enter them. The allocation might be on the basis of wealth, by the use of an auction system. It might be on the basis of merit, as defined by some agreed-upon standards. It might be by lottery. Or it might be on a first-come, first-served basis, administered to long queues. These, I think, are all the reasonable possibilities. They are all objectionable. But we must choose--or acquiesce in the destruction of the commons that we call our National Parks. > ---- > > Non mi sembra che sia una preclusione assoluta ad un possibile regolazione. Anzi, invoca una qualche forma di regolazione dei commons, pena la loro distruzione. In altre parole, mi pare che dica che i commons non possono funzionare (cioè saranno distrutti) se non si decidono delle regole. > > Poi, come ha giustamente osservato l'altro Stefano (Zacchiroli), c'è chi ha usato questa posizione per sostenere che la scelta è la privatizzazione dei beni comuni, ma questa è un'altra storia... > > Ciao, Enrico > > > > Il 15/04/2019 19:17, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: >> ma hai letto l’articolo di Hardin, Stefano? >> I tuoi commenti mi inducono a sospettare di no. >> Hardin infatti in maniera assolutamente apodittica >> scrive che i commons non possono funzionare - punto. >> jc >> (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) >>> On 15 Apr 2019, at 18:12, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: >>> >>> non disse nemmeno "senza gendarmi a verificare il rispetto delle quote" >>> >>> su questo principio, ogni affermazione puo' essere confutata cambiando il dominio di riferimento. >>> anche 2+2=4... >>> >>> ciao, s. >>> >>>> On 15/04/2019 18:03, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >>>> lui non disse: “senza management”. >>>> (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) >>>>> On 15 Apr 2019, at 17:42, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> non mi pare pero' avesse sbagliato... >>>>> nel senso che un commons senza management fa quella fine. >>>>> no ? >>>>> >>>>>> On 15/04/2019 16:49, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >>>>>> The Tragedy of the /Tragedy of the Commons/ >>>>>> The man who wrote one of environmentalism’s most-cited essays was a racist, eugenicist, nativist and Islamaphobe—plus his argument was wrong >>>>>> * By Matto Mildenberger >>>>>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/matto-mildenberger/> on >>>>>> April 23, 2019 >>>>>> * >>>>>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-t… >>>>>> (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> nexa mailing list >>>>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>>>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> reserve your meeting with me at http://cal.quintarelli.it >>> >>> -- >>> reserve your meeting with me at http://cal.quintarelli.it >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > -- EN > > ===================================================================== > Prof. Enrico Nardelli > Dipartimento di Matematica - Universita' di Roma "Tor Vergata" > Via della Ricerca Scientifica snc - 00133 Roma > tel: +39 06 7259.4204 fax: +39 06 7259.4699 > mobile: +39 335 590.2331 e-mail: nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it > home page: http://www.mat.uniroma2.it/~nardelli > blog: http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/blog/enardelli/ > http://link-and-think.blogspot.it/ > ===================================================================== > -- > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

April 15, 2019

Re: [nexa] The Tragedy of "The Tragedy of the Commons" - Scientific American Blog Network

by Enrico Nardelli

Scusate se mi intrometto, ma spinto dalla curiosità, prima della mia precedente risposta avevo letto (ammetto, velocemente) l'articolo originale di Hardin, ed avevo notatno che contiene questo passaggio (alla fine del paragrafo "Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons") ---- What shall we do? We have several options. We might sell them off as private property. We might keep them as public property, but allocate the right to enter them. The allocation might be on the basis of wealth, by the use of an auction system. It might be on the basis of merit, as defined by some agreed-upon standards. It might be by lottery. Or it might be on a first-come, first-served basis, administered to long queues. These, I think, are all the reasonable possibilities. They are all objectionable. But we must choose--or acquiesce in the destruction of the commons that we call our National Parks. ---- Non mi sembra che sia una preclusione assoluta ad un possibile regolazione. Anzi, invoca una qualche forma di regolazione dei commons, pena la loro distruzione. In altre parole, mi pare che dica che i commons non possono funzionare (cioè saranno distrutti) se non si decidono delle regole. Poi, come ha giustamente osservato l'altro Stefano (Zacchiroli), c'è chi ha usato questa posizione per sostenere che la scelta è la privatizzazione dei beni comuni, ma questa è un'altra storia... Ciao, Enrico Il 15/04/2019 19:17, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: > ma hai letto l’articolo di Hardin, Stefano? > I tuoi commenti mi inducono a sospettare di no. > > Hardin infatti in maniera assolutamente apodittica > scrive che i commons non possono funzionare - punto. > > jc > > > > (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) > >> On 15 Apr 2019, at 18:12, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: >> >> non disse nemmeno "senza gendarmi a verificare il rispetto delle quote" >> >> su questo principio, ogni affermazione puo' essere confutata cambiando il dominio di riferimento. >> anche 2+2=4... >> >> ciao, s. >> >>> On 15/04/2019 18:03, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >>> lui non disse: “senza management”. >>> (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) >>>> On 15 Apr 2019, at 17:42, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: >>>> >>>> non mi pare pero' avesse sbagliato... >>>> nel senso che un commons senza management fa quella fine. >>>> no ? >>>> >>>>> On 15/04/2019 16:49, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >>>>> The Tragedy of the /Tragedy of the Commons/ >>>>> The man who wrote one of environmentalism’s most-cited essays was a racist, eugenicist, nativist and Islamaphobe—plus his argument was wrong >>>>> * By Matto Mildenberger >>>>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/matto-mildenberger/> on >>>>> April 23, 2019 >>>>> * >>>>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-t… >>>>> (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> nexa mailing list >>>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>>> >>>> -- >>>> reserve your meeting with me at http://cal.quintarelli.it >> >> -- >> reserve your meeting with me at http://cal.quintarelli.it > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > -- EN ===================================================================== Prof. Enrico Nardelli Dipartimento di Matematica - Universita' di Roma "Tor Vergata" Via della Ricerca Scientifica snc - 00133 Roma tel: +39 06 7259.4204 fax: +39 06 7259.4699 mobile: +39 335 590.2331 e-mail: nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it home page: http://www.mat.uniroma2.it/~nardelli blog: http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/blog/enardelli/ http://link-and-think.blogspot.it/ ===================================================================== --

April 15, 2019

Re: [nexa] The Tragedy of "The Tragedy of the Commons" - Scientific American Blog Network

by J.C. DE MARTIN

ma hai letto l’articolo di Hardin, Stefano? I tuoi commenti mi inducono a sospettare di no. Hardin infatti in maniera assolutamente apodittica scrive che i commons non possono funzionare - punto. jc (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) > On 15 Apr 2019, at 18:12, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: > > non disse nemmeno "senza gendarmi a verificare il rispetto delle quote" > > su questo principio, ogni affermazione puo' essere confutata cambiando il dominio di riferimento. > anche 2+2=4... > > ciao, s. > >> On 15/04/2019 18:03, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >> lui non disse: “senza management”. >> (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) >>> On 15 Apr 2019, at 17:42, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: >>> >>> non mi pare pero' avesse sbagliato... >>> nel senso che un commons senza management fa quella fine. >>> no ? >>> >>>> On 15/04/2019 16:49, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >>>> The Tragedy of the /Tragedy of the Commons/ >>>> The man who wrote one of environmentalism’s most-cited essays was a racist, eugenicist, nativist and Islamaphobe—plus his argument was wrong >>>> * By Matto Mildenberger >>>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/matto-mildenberger/> on >>>> April 23, 2019 >>>> * >>>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-t… >>>> (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> nexa mailing list >>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>> >>> -- >>> reserve your meeting with me at http://cal.quintarelli.it > > -- > reserve your meeting with me at http://cal.quintarelli.it

April 15, 2019

Re: [nexa] The Tragedy of "The Tragedy of the Commons" - Scientific American Blog Network

by Stefano Zacchiroli

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 06:46:40PM +0200, Enrico Nardelli wrote: > Devo comunque confessare che un articolo che contesta un saggio sulla base del fatto che il suo autore sia razzista, eugenista, nativista (questa non l'avevo mai sentita - è uno che crede letteralmente nel Natale?) e islamofobo si squalifica da solo come critica scientifica. Infatti alla fine emerge nell'articolo come il principale interesse del suo autore sia la politica. Concordo. ... e in fatti le critiche di Coriat et al. che citavo più sopra *non* sono basate sulle (orrende) opinioni personali dell'autore del famoso essay in materia di eugenetica. Ma sono più sostanziali sulla definizione stessa. La proposta alternativa (detta male) è di *non* considera come commons qualcosa che sia semplicemente abbandonato a se stesso e quindi, in quanto tale, prono ad essere facilmente appropriato da interessi privati. Poi, certo, possiamo contro argomentare dicendo che è come redefinire l'addizione perché 2+2 faccia 5. Ma culturalmente c'è una differenza enorme. La nozione di commons di "tragedy of the commons" è stata usata culturalmente per promuovere l'appropriazione commerciale come l'unico modo di difendere veramente un commons. La nozione alternative, al contrario, promuove una difesa pubblica, basta su regulation, dei commons. Take your pick. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . zack(a)upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

April 15, 2019