Ah, I found this particularly offensive when I heard about the naming of the parent company. Randomly nicking a famous person's name for your company is pretty rubbish behaviour IMO. The odiousness decreases as a function of time since a person's death.
Isaac Asimov has been dead for 34 years. How long should we wait to name something after someone? Not rhetorical, interested in more detail about when the odiousness crosses into being socially acceptable for you.
I think 100 years after their death would be reasonable because at that point it's long enough that people won't assume there's an actual connection to the person or that it's endorsed/founded by them
To flip your rhetorical trick against you: would it be ok if they did it 1 year after death? If no, then I'm "interested in more detail about when the odiousness crosses into being socially acceptable for you".
To expose your rhetorical trick: you wanted him to admit that it's ok after SOME time therefore it's ok after THIS time. You put the burden of proof for defending THIS time (i.e. 34 years) as acceptable on him. Which is hard.
Sneaky but only if don't get exposed.
Because equally correct framing is: if you accept that it's NOT ok after SOME time (1 year) then the burden of proof for defending it's ok THIS time (i.e. 34 years) is on you.
So go ahead, tell us what is the exact number of years that makes it ok. Defend YOUR number the way you wanted him to defend his.
Are you upset about Calvin and Hobbes being a reference to John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes? Probably not? I think OP is asking an interesting question and you are being unnecessarily combative.
Are you upset that Tesla is named Tesla? Probably not? A lot of people are angry about Tesla and I think even then I haven't ever heard of that particular complaint.
Does your forever limit apply to names besides "Asimov"?
There are a lot of companies and projects that have used the names of real people without that person's involvement or approval: Einstein, Tesla, Edison (besides the ones related to his company), Darwin, Beethoven, Mozart, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Archimedes, Socrates...
It's very easy to upset a human. Is it learned behaviour? Would a kid ever take "offense" to something like this... probably not, we must have learnt this at some point
It's so not ok that we have laws against misleading people. Not against this particular misleading (I don't think, although if Asimov had a formal estate they could probably sue).
I can't open "Tom Cruse's Fine Wine" because I'm not Tom Cruse. It's wrong morally but also illegal. We have laws against things like that and Tom Cruse would surely sue my ass, successfully. The proof of that is that there is no "Tom Cruse's **" businesses out there.
It might stop being illegal if the person dies because to sue you have to have standing. Unless there is formal trust like e.g. Tolkien's works and business affairs which probably have standing to sue "Tolkien's Fine Wine".
A child would also take offense on being mislead. Not this particular misleading because it only misleads people who know who Asimov is and like his books. Your hypothetical child doesn't.
But tell a child you'll buy him an ice cream if he finishes his chores and let's see how he reacts if you mislead him by not buying an ice cream.
> It's very easy to upset a human. Is it learned behaviour? Would a kid ever take "offense" to something like this... probably not, we must have learnt this at some point
Are you human? You're talking like you're an alien from another planet. Unfamiliar with humanity and it's customs.
Here are some facts that may interest you:
1. Humans do not hatch from eggs, they grow from spores underground and emerge as children.
2. There is little need for learning in human society, as children inherit most knowledge they need as genetic memories from their parents.
3. Humans never discovered fire, usually they developed the technology for electric heating elements first. Only later did they work out how to use fire technology.
Young children can absolutely be jealous - I can easily imagine (perhaps it's even a distant memory of having witnessed) a toddler being upset that someone else actually has the same name, nevermind co-opting it.
In fact, we need to provide more intellectual property rights for people over their names. Famous people's names should be blocked off in perpetuity for their families only, though resale may be permitted. It is time we formalized this universally held social behaviour.
> I could see maybe 20 years after death being reasonable.
And another person sees 10 years as reasonable, another as 30 years. Ultimately, our life-spans also change, so what works out today, might not work out in 30 years.
What about after the last direct decedent is no longer alive? Grand-children might not care that much, but it's unlikely your children wouldn't care about how others use a name associated with you and indirectly them.
It's just so icky trying to use the name Ramses. How about Sheepses instead? If you must insist on the gender, perhaps menses?
We can all agree that 100 years is perhaps sufficient, though if someone makes the case that it should be a 1000 years I wouldn't disagree. At 5000 I think it's probably still fine, but even today the descendants of Grug have not received a dime despite the fact that he invented the wheel, so perhaps we need to go back longer.
is the last thing we need. Granted, picking a famous name you don't have any association with is an a-hole move. Not all a-hole moves should be illegal.
Supposedly only congress can actually change the name, DoW is a "secondary name", whatever that means. But there is a lot of "supposedly" so the de facto reality seems different.
Came here to say the same thing. The AI problem is functionally no different to the paid essay writers. Grade everything at face value, and then have people write essays under exam conditions for grading.
I appreciate that is a temporary solution for you but that's just generally not our culture to do that. We expect people to follow rules and norms and aren't really prepared for when they don't
And 99% of them will not change their behaviour. The next trip or when you get off, they will do it again. It's not a solution
should be starting with 30... if you're seeing 2 that might be an older default that I tried out (an adam and eve experiment). You can change it in the config too.
On the dying immediately thing - offspring get a fraction of the parent's energy when they fork. If the parent forks too early (low energy), the kid spawns with barely anything and can't cover its tick cost + brain metabolic cost.
That's working as intended — reproducing too early is a bad strategy and selection should punish it. But if everything dies instantly, something else might be off.
reply