Why would that ever happen? Software is too important for people to not sell outside of communism and free software people aren’t as good as making consumer products as capitalists
Software is too important for people not to _share_. And too important for people to have to waste endless resources in re-developing in multiple closed contexts.
As for "communism" - if by whiskey, I mean if by Communism you mean soviet-union-style social arrangements, then I'm pretty sure they had closed-source software which the government controlled and people could not use and alter freely; but if you mean "communism" as in software being a "commons", then, yeah, free software will win when that is again the case.
The Blackberry Storm sold 500,000 units in its first month and 1 million units by January 2009.[15] However, Verizon had to replace almost all of the one million Storm smartphones sold in 2008 due to issues with the SurePress touch screen [16] and claimed $500 million in losses.
To elaborate - Nokia innovated a lot. But internally Nokia was chaotic. They were Google, before Google got the reputation for creating projects only to kill them when they had hardly started.
Couple this with the absolute dictatorship that the Symbian division had over what they were releasing as a cellular device, and Meego/Maemo never had a chance. Up till the N900 the Maemo division was blocked from having cellular. After the N900 it was too late really. They clambered to make the N9, but it was at the breaking point and so they did the burning memo thing. The N9 was basically the blueprint for the Windows Phone models Nokia released.
Also there are way more women applying, to the point where you’re more than double as likely to get in as a man than as a woman. There’s a huge argument about this but no one actually looked up the data for some reason:
https://www.clarkecollegeinsight.com/blog/how-to-get-into-ca...
Good Lord. I'd never get into any of these schools these days. (Three people from my 59 person high school class got into MIT and we weren't a high-powered school.) Though I guess if it's any consolation a bunch of the great professors would never get tenure either because they were more tinkerers than theoreticians.
> You're less than half as likely to get in as a man.
This is a bit of a misunderstanding of how statistics works. This does not reflect your personal chances of being accepted, only the chances of the subset of men who applied. You are assuming that all the men were equally qualified as the women and there were no other distinguishing characteristics between the two groups.
For instance, if there is a pre-selection process for one group that there was not for another it could skew the numbers significantly and make one group much smaller with a higher acceptance rate.
While the percentage differences could indicate bias against men, it could also indicate something else.
Of course, you don't know what the distribution of applicants looks like. Though I do strongly suspect that some groups (by gender, geography, even athletic credentials, etc.) almost certainly have a better shot than others all other things being equal.
MIT these days is about half men and half women undergrad. Pretty consistently, about twice as many men as women apply. So you can do the math. There are some other factors like I believe a slightly lower percentage of women accept than men and, of course, you don't know the relative quality academically of the applicant pool (which MIT doesn't publish any data on).
However, it would be really hard to believe the curves for the two populations are that different even if I can certainly believe men are a bit more likely to roll the dice by applying just in case they luck out.
I suspect an admissions officer, if they were candid, would probably say something like: Look, all the students with absolutely impeccable credentials applying are probably getting admitted. Those that are unqualified are not. So we're now figuring out what's most important to us as an institution from the middle tier of applicants especially given that we're dealing with a lot of noisy signal. And, yes, one of these things is that MIT decided years ago it wanted a reasonably balanced gender ratio which we didn't used to remotely have.
It seems like there is actually some affirmative action for men going on at Caltech, the exact opposite of what he claimed. Check out the acceptance rates, it’s double for men
