Your reference, NextDNS's discussion of their approach and how it differs from others, is from 2019 and no longer correctly represents how pihole works. Pihole has handled this since release 5.0.
Have you ever actually looked at the Schrödinger equation? [1] It's pretty simple. If you've had freshman physics, you can learn enough to derive it in a matter of days or at most weeks. There's not a lot of room in there for the kind of thing you are suggesting.
It's much more plausible that the uncomfortable human-centric thing we need to let go is the idea that our perceptions about macroscopic reality should be indicative of how things actually are.
The system of epicycles was made of pretty simple, easy things: circles. It's when they were combined things went complicated.
Same with Schrödinger equation: it's very simple for one particle in an empty Universe, but things go more complicated when more particles are considered.
There is no guarantee that a different approach can replace QM and describe things in a simpler way. But I suspect that attempts to look for such approaches are not useless.
What do you mean by "derive" the Schrödinger equation? As best as I know, there is no "derivation" beyond some analogy with the classical wave equation. It's an equation penned down by Schrödinger, motivated by the classical wave equation and insights from de broglie's theory.
Indeed, early progress with QM in the first place required letting go of some expectations that were based on macroscopic phenomena. There was a certain effort to clarify those expectations so they could be gotten rid of. This is, at least, what I remember being taught about it.
That would, indeed, be an uncomfortable thing to let go of, since they are our direct perceptions.
Relativity tells us things get weird at high velocities, but our daily perception is basically correct. Quantum theory seems to suggest that solid, tangible reality isn't at all like our day-to-day experience. That's a pretty decent leap to ask of people.
> open source software is only free if your time and expertise are free
but since you seem to actually be trying to discuss this in a thoughtful way, please note that we're not given a choice between free software that takes time and expertise to use and maintain vs closed software that takes no time or expertise to maintain. To mimic your original phrase, Windows 10 Pro is only $199 if your time and expertise is free. Going further, in my experience it's often been the case that the free software takes less time and less expertise to use and maintain.
Also, it's worth mentioning that you are conflating two different things, open source software and free software, a distinction that often doesn't matter but is central when the point at hand is the ethics of free-as-in-freedom software vs non-free software, a distinction the term open source was deliberately created to elide. You are also conflating free-as-in-freedom with free-as-in-beer by opposing the "software is only freedom-free" with "your time and expertise are free-as-in-beer free".
Finally it's not clear to me why you went on to address the pragmatics of non-free hardware or the fact that human effort is necessary to build computers, maintain distros, write kernels etc. Is there a claim that it's unethical to try to run free software on the hardware that you have, or that free(dom) software must always be provide without cost on hardware that is both free(dom) and without cost? If not, then computer users can still spend a small amount of money, relative to utility, to buy a computer that runs free(dom) software.
I'm not disputing your claims that accessibility software on Windows or iOS is better than that on Linux, because I don't know the space. It's an unrelated argument, afaict. To illustrate this, simply imagine that some government or corporation had decided to make high-quality accessibility software available under a free license. (I am reminded of Intel's work supporting Dr. Hawking.) You wouldn't conclude from this that all your previous thoughts about free and open source software vs closed/commerical software were wrong, I assume.
You seemingly make a strong, baseless, and unscientific ontological claim, saying that we have one set of mathematical formalisms in our theoretical model that are "really real" and others that are not "really real". Surely the word "virtual" can no more be used to support this claim than the word "imaginary" can be used to distinguish the reality of real and complex numbers.
>Copyright holder could give someone else authorisation to sue on their behalf, e.g., through a license.
They can't assign the bare right to sue. To have standing the plaintiff will need to hold at least one of the exclusive rights in 17 U.S. Code § 106 aiui. Cf Righthaven cases, Silvers v Sony Pictures
I am almost certain you are correct, I would be shocked if genius was granted an exclusive right to lyrics. If nothing else, how could you sell the songs without rights to the lyrics?
So I don't think genius ever had standing to pursue this case.
Again, not a lawyer. But you'd think the actual lawyers would have checked this more carefully.
