I agree that whenever someone repeats what you said but oversimplifies it and goes "so you're saying X" and then quickly moves on to the next topic, that's just irritating and immediately puts you in the defensive
The glory is that Richard has verbal intelligence and precision and wants a sober conversation....while the interviewer is a run-of-the-mill tool just babbering away like this is an MTV set.
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eatIzqwB2dA.html Christ died for your sins and rose on the third day, showing that anyone who trusts in him for salvation, will have everlasting life. (John 11:25-26) "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
@@charlie4christ536 thanks for this, but how does this relate to the video. Also can you clarify how these verses assist in understanding Richard Stallman's lack of socal aptitude. Show all working.
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eatIzqwB2dA.html Christ died for your sins and rose on the third day, showing that anyone who trusts in him for salvation, will have everlasting life. (John 11:25-26) "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Free Software is great! But listening and accepting full questions would make him a better person. People who don't even let someone finish asking his question means he cannot answer it, or he has something to hide. Oh, and what makes him think that his free computers doesn't have a special chip listening your conversation, just like mobile phones supposedly do ?????? Did you check your car for a hidden GPS sensor and data connection chip ? Just narrowing down the smartphone isn't gonna be enough...
"Intel shouldn't be allowed to have a monopoly" But isn't that part of Freedom? When i want to buy a Intel Chip, and i am not allowed because "Intel already sold too much chips, now you have to buy a SPARC which doesn't run your software. Bad for you but thats better than Intel having a monopoly"
@@joshuaking-lambert7540 No, but I played a game called Time Warp. A game about a pair of fingers in checkerboard land with upside down doors and if you kill things, they say "Time?"
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eatIzqwB2dA.html Christ died for your sins and rose on the third day, showing that anyone who trusts in him for salvation, will have everlasting life. (John 11:25-26) "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
"unsympathetic totalitarian asshole".? Not sure in what way? The interviewer seemed either very inexperienced, unprepared, or deliberately antagonistic. Stallman just came across as reasonable, honest and direct. It would have been better if he'd let the interviewer finish his questions at times, but I can fully understand his reason for interrupting questions that were being asked with poor reasoning.
The interviewer is very very bad, asks questions loaded, cynical, provocative of controversy, in no way intends to be an informative interview about which is GNU / Linux. But Stallman is smart and he realizes how bad his questions are. In addition, the "journalist" shows little or no ability to do a good job as an interviewer. Stallamn is too clever to let him manipulate. Stallman put it in ridiculely, I congratulate him for that. But I'm sorry that pseudo-journalists are wasting Mr. Stallman's time. Finnally, they put a donkey as an interviewer a lack of respect to Mr. Stallman.
The interviewer is horrible I agree with OOD2021. He should learn how to listen before making interviews. Stallman is a person that talks slowly and needs to be giving the time to answer the way he wants, when stallman stops talking then you can go to the next question. I mean if i ever got to talk with Stallman I would be happy. I may not always agree with him but I would never talk back when he is giving an answer.
The interviewer got absolutely rekt for trying to push leftist arguments into "Free" and "Open Source", which have NOTHING to do with politics. Stallman can be a rough guy to talk with, but his arguments and way of speaking is one of a person that knows too much and has way to little time to explain the concepts, especially with somebody interrupting him halfway through or based on dumb hypoteses.
I get that sometimes you really have too spoonfeed the right question to RMS, but I would probably become that way too if I had to deal with interviewers like this one every day. I get what most of what the interviewer is point at but it is way too vague so if RMS said anything wrong it would be paraphrased to oblivion. I for one understand that we'll never have a world where all "mandatory for a normal life in society" software is free/libre, but at the same time I wish for more general openness, if there ever is a way for propietary software to become trusted.
Richard here reminds me a conversation with my uncle: - Where is she from? Yokohama I think - You think or you know? Yeah, I think she said Yokohama - So you don't know I said I think.. - Right. So, just say 'I don't know'. I mean, it was not Osaka or Nagoya, It was Tokyo, that I remember. - Tokyo is not Yokohama Yeah, I know but I mean the metro... - So you don't know which city is which? Uncle, I think she said Yokohama. Am I sure? no, I don't remember for sure but... - Just say you don't know. Okay... I don't know. - How can you not know where your girlfriend is from? Oh come on, drop it. -
You just don't know what he is talking about. Try using the term "Liberal software" instead of "free software" and maybe you get the point. The idea is that the user should be allowed to examine and modify the software in his computer. Whether the software cost $0.00 or $999.99 does not matter.
K Me I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive ideas. Some software, in order to have a price attached, needs its source code protected from "free rider" duplication.
John Dardy _//Some software, in order to have a price attached, needs its source code protected from "free rider" duplication.//_ You don't get it. Liberal software does not restrict it's user in any way! The user can copy, modify, distribute, and *even sell it*. So it can be both free and paid. Richard Stallman is a smart man! He wrote the GNU General Public License, and most people making money from free/liberal software use this license. There are other more liberal software licenses...MIT for example, which make it much harder to make money as a developer, but it is still possible.
Wow! Richard Stallman really has a high level of discernment. It is really impressive. The interviewer is really very bad and RIchard Stallman showed impressive accuracy. I've admired him since the first time I found out about his name and what he did (that was 20 years ago) but now I'm going to admire him even more. He really has a penetrating mind.
He's right about raising issues without antagonizing, using a straw man, imposing opinions etc. there's a right way to ask questions and there's a provocative way to ask questions
This video is a fake / troll video which has been cut so it seems that it went wrong. Here is the original video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fkkDvKGcNSo.html
This video is a fake / troll video which has been cut so it seems that it went wrong. Here is the original video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fkkDvKGcNSo.html
If you are not at the level of Dr. Stallman's intellect (and most of us are not) you'd better speak less, listen more and give yourself a chance to learn something.
This is good and bad. I get the idea that people dont want to be controlled or told how they can use software and I get that people/ some people may not want Microsoft,Google,Apple,Facebook and other big companies and the government to get more powerful and control us/surveillance us, I also get if theirs a problem with the code/program/software, it would be allot easier and better, at times and in certain situations, to just add in code to fix the problem or code something to go along with the software, to use the software how you need to, and to make the software better, but at the same time, by giving the software away/ allowing people/Users/Google/Microsoft/Facebook/Apple/The Government/terrorist/who knows who, to alter the code, creates allot of vulnerabilities, meaning now some one could add malware to the software, to track what your doing/ just be destructive over all, just for fun or, because there bored. Security needs to work to the users benefit, not the companies, but at the same time, sometimes the companies benefit is also the users/employees benefit. This comment could go on for a long time, if I explained/showed different point of views and really broke everything down, but I am gonna try and sum up the gist of it. For one security, if we didn't have encryption/VPNs it would be bad, for everyone; although yes encryption can be used destructively on the corporate/business side, Government side, along with the consumer/user and also the hacker side, I also realize that different people define the word hacker differently, meaning some people use the word as in, someone that tinkers/alters certain things/computers/devices, to work for them/ to create, but essentially hacking is the same thing, in the breaking into/destroying systems/stealing peoples data, definition as well, if you really think about it. With hacking your looking for vulnerabilities with in systems to exploit them, for what ever your trying to accomplish, so in a sense there one in the same. Also Crackers are something completely different, crackers, crack passwords/guess/figure out passwords, thats usually considered a manual task/done by the cracker, you can also use cracking software as well, but hacking and cracking are two different things; yes a hacker and a cracker can do the same things/have knowledge of both, but doing tasks that involve figuring out passwords is considered cracking, unless were referring to social engineering/ looking for a place were a password is written down on paper, or looking in a computer with no password, and clicking into a file/folder that says passwords, or finding and exploiting something with in software/ a program, that allows you to read or get someones password. Also theres also a fine line between hackers as well, there is white hat hackers, they are considered to be ethical/good hackers, that look for vulnerabilities with in computers/networks/systems, to patch those vulnerabilities with in a computer/network/system, to make them more secure; a Grey hat hacker is someone that might do what a white hat hacker does, but they may also download movies and music from secure sites or more specifically, they may break into and alter things with in programs to benefit them selves; this goes against software licenses; and is put in place to protect the developer and protect the user in some cases, but the main thing to take away from this, is a grey hat hacker isn't intentionally trying to hurt/harm anyone, but they are hacking things to benefit them selfs, but getting software without paying; and the last category is black hat hackers and they want to cause damage to servers/networks/monitor people/ there intention is to harm users and networks/ to do illegal things or take peoples money. So the point is we need passwords, also I highly recommend two step verification as well, along with encryption/security to protect us/our data and we definitely dont need to give everyone access to source code, thats as crazy as allowing business/corporate/the government to control us, there needs to be a sweet spot/ a way to protect everyone, Also I am almost a hundred percent sure that GNU Linux has something in it, that protects the OS/Source code/kernel/ROM, from being altered, if not they need to be taught a lesson, the hard way and add something in, that would be catastrophic to the OS/Operating System and its users, just to show how important security/encryption, VPNs and passwords and two step verification is; but I also get that programmers/developers need to get paid for there work and I also get that some software wouldn't be free/allowed to be downloaded with no payment up front, with out a caveat/ a catch and that catch is, companies taking your search history and what your buying online and selling it to companies, to pay for the software developed. Also you could also argue in the GNU OS/Operating System, your having to do something similar to pay for the software, the users are adding to the code to make a profit, so no one has to hire someone to code, what people are getting to use for free, on top of this though, you can still make a profit with the OS, reason being is the copy right/license agreement, people can use the OS for free, but they cant sell it, with out paying something for the distribution rights, so yes people are still getting paid, theirs just less profit going on, compared to other OSs/ Operating Systems; Also back to traditional OSs/Operating systems/profit plans; Now you can muddy the water/ make your info online not accurate/also encrypt and use a VPN, but if everyone does this, then most likely companies are going to come to the conclusion that selling peoples information isn't worth it, any more, and then your copy of windows will cost more or not be free anymore. You may say, I dont care Linux is free, but Windows is used for banking and to get a really good experience with gaming, out of the box, you will need windows, so most likely there are going to be some people that are going to have to pay for windows; Also I'm not saying you shouldn't have security in place, you should; I'm just saying that, one everyone has to make money, so if selling data isn't working out, then software is going to cost more up front. Also it is not fun, not knowing whats in your firmware or needing to check everything to make sure, or if you cant see it, deleting it and coding your own software and encrypting it, because then you will know what its designed to do, but thats what security is all about. What would be more practical/ what I think would make more sense with his/Richard stallman's movement, is to create a software/OS/Operating System/Kernel/Rom; Every copy of that OS should have a VPN/HTTP Every Where, encryption out of the box for files/everything, Ad Blocker, blockers for other things he doesn't like such as java script, with in reason though and have the ability to toggle/ turn these things on and off individually, really good security, directly out of the box/download, that just runs, it should also require a password two step verification and also have software that goes on your phone that puts a mobile version of GNUs OS/Operating System on your device, also custom firmware, that doesn't track you/data mine/ also have the ability to, if you want to go all out buy custom hardware/machine/ Richard Stallman approved hardware; also people could also add there own code to the OS/Operating System as well, but updates/add ons would need to be approved; yes that doesn't make updating something as easy, but it goes with the actual cause and thats to keep big brother/the government/facebook/google and so on, off your back/out of your private business; doing this creates vulnerabilities though, but thats part of what Richard Stallman's about, is the user to be able to add code when they want, but Richard also doesn't want big brother/the government/google snooping either, so thats why things should mandatorly need to be approved, and only be able to be uploaded while there VPN is on/running. This would makes allot more sense vs giving everyone the keys to the kingdom. Also yes I'm sure apple,Android and Amazon want to sensor things/remove bad things from there store, but on top of that, the reason you can't just upload anything to these places, is because of malware/viruses and so on/ more importantly security, yes I Know apple,Microsoft and so on have there own malware tools, such as, example; Microsoft/Windows 10 and Diagtrack and Dmwappushservice, which can be deleted and should be deleted. Point being this makes allot more sense to the over all cause, how its currently laid out is contradicting and basically pointless.
RMS did succeed! We have free software, free operating systems, and the Linux Kernel is just a small part of it, but nonetheless part of it and a result of it. Personally I have computing freedom because of the idea of free software, and I'm not beholden to evil companies and all their schemes to own and control users. The global companies are just getting worse and worse, which means we should be more and more happy we have freedom software.
FWIW, I think most Stallman interviews go wrong. I think RMS has a lot of good points to make, but as an advocate, he's his own worst enemy Even if we say the interviewer is hostile, contrarian or not understanding, Stallman's approach is too fragile to navigate it. It leaves the only contexts Stallman is comfortable in is preaching to the choir which doesn't accomplish much in the way of change or adoption. Outside of that context, he is likely to alienate people or be so concerned that the conversation conforms to his requirements that no actually communication happens. I think he's unable to process the CO in communication. Overall, at this point, I think free software would be better served with Stallman's original writings as his talks tend to just be a restatement of those anyway.
Free Software is great! But listening and accepting full questions would make him a better person. People who don't even let someone finish asking his question means he cannot answer it, or he has something to hide. Oh, and what makes him think that his free computers doesn't have a special chip listening your conversation, just like mobile phones supposedly do ?????? Did you check your car for a hidden GPS sensor and data connection chip ? Just narrowing down the smartphone isn't gonna be enough...
This is good and bad. I get the idea that people dont want to be controlled or told how they can use software and I get that people/ some people may not want Microsoft,Google,Apple,Facebook and other big companies and the government to get more powerful and control us/surveillance us, I also get if theirs a problem with the code/program/software, it would be allot easier and better, at times and in certain situations, to just add in code to fix the problem or code something to go along with the software, to use the software how you need to, and to make the software better, but at the same time, by giving the software away/ allowing people/Users/Google/Microsoft/Facebook/Apple/The Government/terrorist/who knows who, to alter the code, creates allot of vulnerabilities, meaning now some one could add malware to the software, to track what your doing/ just be destructive over all, just for fun or, because there bored. Security needs to work to the users benefit, not the companies, but at the same time, sometimes the companies benefit is also the users/employees benefit. This comment could go on for a long time, if I explained/showed different point of views and really broke everything down, but I am gonna try and sum up the gist of it. For one security, if we didn't have encryption/VPNs it would be bad, for everyone; although yes encryption can be used destructively on the corporate/business side, Government side, along with the consumer/user and also the hacker side, I also realize that different people define the word hacker differently, meaning some people use the word as in, someone that tinkers/alters certain things/computers/devices, to work for them/ to create, but essentially hacking is the same thing, in the breaking into/destroying systems/stealing peoples data, definition as well, if you really think about it. With hacking your looking for vulnerabilities with in systems to exploit them, for what ever your trying to accomplish, so in a sense there one in the same. Also Crackers are something completely different, crackers, crack passwords/guess/figure out passwords, thats usually considered a manual task/done by the cracker, you can also use cracking software as well, but hacking and cracking are two different things; yes a hacker and a cracker can do the same things/have knowledge of both, but doing tasks that involve figuring out passwords is considered cracking, unless were referring to social engineering/ looking for a place were a password is written down on paper, or looking in a computer with no password, and clicking into a file/folder that says passwords, or finding and exploiting something with in software/ a program, that allows you to read or get someones password. Also theres also a fine line between hackers as well, there is white hat hackers, they are considered to be ethical/good hackers, that look for vulnerabilities with in computers/networks/systems, to patch those vulnerabilities with in a computer/network/system, to make them more secure; a Grey hat hacker is someone that might do what a white hat hacker does, but they may also download movies and music from secure sites or more specifically, they may break into and alter things with in programs to benefit them selves; this goes against software licenses; and is put in place to protect the developer and protect the user in some cases, but the main thing to take away from this, is a grey hat hacker isn't intentionally trying to hurt/harm anyone, but they are hacking things to benefit them selfs, but getting software without paying; and the last category is black hat hackers and they want to cause damage to servers/networks/monitor people/ there intention is to harm users and networks/ to do illegal things or take peoples money. So the point is we need passwords, also I highly recommend two step verification as well, along with encryption/security to protect us/our data and we definitely dont need to give everyone access to source code, thats as crazy as allowing business/corporate/the government to control us, there needs to be a sweet spot/ a way to protect everyone, Also I am almost a hundred percent sure that GNU Linux has something in it, that protects the OS/Source code/kernel/ROM, from being altered, if not they need to be taught a lesson, the hard way and add something in, that would be catastrophic to the OS/Operating System and its users, just to show how important security/encryption, VPNs and passwords and two step verification is; but I also get that programmers/developers need to get paid for there work and I also get that some software wouldn't be free/allowed to be downloaded with no payment up front, with out a caveat/ a catch and that catch is, companies taking your search history and what your buying online and selling it to companies, to pay for the software developed. Also you could also argue in the GNU OS/Operating System, your having to do something similar to pay for the software, the users are adding to the code to make a profit, so no one has to hire someone to code, what people are getting to use for free, on top of this though, you can still make a profit with the OS, reason being is the copy right/license agreement, people can use the OS for free, but they cant sell it, with out paying something for the distribution rights, so yes people are still getting paid, theirs just less profit going on, compared to other OSs/ Operating Systems; Also back to traditional OSs/Operating systems/profit plans; Now you can muddy the water/ make your info online not accurate/also encrypt and use a VPN, but if everyone does this, then most likely companies are going to come to the conclusion that selling peoples information isn't worth it, any more, and then your copy of windows will cost more or not be free anymore. You may say, I dont care Linux is free, but Windows is used for banking and to get a really good experience with gaming, out of the box, you will need windows, so most likely there are going to be some people that are going to have to pay for windows; Also I'm not saying you shouldn't have security in place, you should; I'm just saying that, one everyone has to make money, so if selling data isn't working out, then software is going to cost more up front. Also it is not fun, not knowing whats in your firmware or needing to check everything to make sure, or if you cant see it, deleting it and coding your own software and encrypting it, because then you will know what its designed to do, but thats what security is all about. What would be more practical/ what I think would make more sense with his/Richard stallman's movement, is to create a software/OS/Operating System/Kernel/Rom; Every copy of that OS should have a VPN/HTTP Every Where, encryption out of the box for files/everything, Ad Blocker, blockers for other things he doesn't like such as java script, with in reason though and have the ability to toggle/ turn these things on and off individually, really good security, directly out of the box/download, that just runs, it should also require a password two step verification and also have software that goes on your phone that puts a mobile version of GNUs OS/Operating System on your device, also custom firmware, that doesn't track you/data mine/ also have the ability to, if you want to go all out buy custom hardware/machine/ Richard Stallman approved hardware; also people could also add there own code to the OS/Operating System as well, but updates/add ons would need to be approved; yes that doesn't make updating something as easy, but it goes with the actual cause and thats to keep big brother/the government/facebook/google and so on, off your back/out of your private business; doing this creates vulnerabilities though, but thats part of what Richard Stallman's about, is the user to be able to add code when they want, but Richard also doesn't want big brother/the government/google snooping either, so thats why things should mandatorly need to be approved, and only be able to be uploaded while there VPN is on/running. This would makes allot more sense vs giving everyone the keys to the kingdom. Also yes I'm sure apple,Android and Amazon want to sensor things/remove bad things from there store, but on top of that, the reason you can't just upload anything to these places, is because of malware/viruses and so on/ more importantly security, yes I Know apple,Microsoft and so on have there own malware tools, such as, example; Microsoft/Windows 10 and Diagtrack and Dmwappushservice, which can be deleted and should be deleted. Point being this makes allot more sense to the over all cause, how its currently laid out is contradicting and basically pointless.
This interviewer is a product of how toxic programmers and software developers have become over time as well as so many other tech enthusiasts. If something comes off too idealistic or radical, they hold it to so much skepticism and scrutiny. They don’t even think it’s cool. Such a said turn out for what used to be so radically innovative.
This video is a fake / troll video which has been cut so it seems that it went wrong. Here is the original video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fkkDvKGcNSo.html
The interviewer is a people pleaser. He can’t stand confrontation, seems unable to step back and take a moment to put his thoughts together differently. We need an inner space of safety and security, to be able to stumble and pick ourselves back up, without seeking external validation.
As me myself I've read a lot of books and I completely understand Stallman. People nowadays tend to generalize, classify and use preference in their thoughts. The problem is that mixing thoughts with philosophy and especially an activist such as Stallman makes him oppresses of himself ..leading only for modern narssicistics behaviors
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eatIzqwB2dA.html Christ died for your sins and rose on the third day, showing that anyone who trusts in him for salvation, will have everlasting life. (John 11:25-26) "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The interviewer has a huge lake of knowledge about the subject he tries to impose theories on... "You think you know, but you don't know. And the ones who know, know that you don't know" ;)
please, first understand what free software means and then comment. Free software means the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech”, not as in “free beer”. More precisely, free software means users of a program have the four essential freedoms: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour (freedom 2).The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Stallman's dream is a world where we have GNU Minus Linux, but you can have Linux if you so choose, as long as Linux provides the source code and a copy of the GPL with all source code distributions, and you don't fall for the quote 'Open Source' unquote propaganda that the only thing that matters is whether or not you can see the source code, because, you see, free software, which we now call Libre Software, stands for much more than just source code. Libre Software is a philosophy that the user's freedom is more important than having shiny toys. When I was young, and I was hacking emacs (which is superior to vim by the way) I realized that not all of my users were interested in simply having the ability to hack my code themselves. Some of them had much more sinister interests. In fact, at one point we had a group of users that took it upon themselves to attempt to take the code we had written and profit upon it while simultaneously depriving their own users of freedom. So please, do not put words into my mouth, I can speak for myself, thank you. I even speak a little espanol, so if you'd like to pull a fast one on me by slipping in some spanish phrases, you can know right now that it is not going to work. I actually wrote an article about this on my blog... *looks around* wait, where did everyone go?
lol, maybe there's more going on in the background but Richard here sounds pretty passive-aggressive to me tbh. He complains about word choice, interrupts the interviewer, is condescending, and is unable to control his emotions. Clearly hostile. He even got made by the guy laughing in agreement to his Stalin's dream. Richard: The guy is not Larry King... chill bro. I can only imagine you being interviewed by Andrew Neil xD
I am currently neutral on my opinion of Stallman but this is a horrible interview because the interviewer is so self-obsessed as to not listen but profess. He doesn't let Stallman speak, he interrupts, he cuts him short, he misinterprets. He doesn't care about the answers or the topic but about getting his point across, and his interviewee can be damned if he doesn't fit his template. I'm surprised Stallman didn't walk out. I congratulate him for going the distance [I imagine he did anyway by this video].
no you aren't alone. the interviewer jumped conclusion interupted stallman and made a mess of this interview and whoever made this video wasn't even honest enough to show the full length interview.
The interviewer had bad English and asked bad questions but he wasn't rude. Richard was being a whiny spaz, hypocritically telling the interviewer he's interrupting.
Does he fly on an airplane? That flying piece of metal is full of proprietary software running on computer of who knows who. People does not have the freedom to see the code. If he take an airplane he supports proprietary software.
I dont like how Richard just shuts down any attempt at an argument. It feels like he is avoiding uncomfortable questions and then admits to becoming angry at them.
