Apparently a journalist asked one family in each of 20 different countries to gather all of the food they bought in one week and take a picture. It's a fascinating look at global diets. The UK is even more disturbing than the US.
Mexico is interesting. A table full of fresh food, and... what looks like 12 2-liter bottles of Coke.
On the USA table, there is literally nothing fresh. Every food is packaged, plus McDonalds, Burger King, 2 pizzas... Plus Diet Coke of course.
And in Germany, again looks like a lot of healthy food there but then there's like 4 bottles of wine and 30 bottles of beer. Uh, that's a weeks worth of booze is it?
And finally, with Chad. Three bags of something (rice I suppose) and a bottle of water. No fresh food, like the Americans. But compare the two pics side by side - wow.
When Google first came out with "don't be evil", this was exactly the kind of thing I thought they wanted to avoid, especially since the corporate bogeyman of the day was Microsoft and they were doing exactly this (Apple too). Turns out I don't really have any idea what Google thinks don't be evil means. It looks like they operate like any other corporation, where the only people they truly care about in a bottom-line sense are shareholders. May as well be up front about that. From what I've seen, a better motto is probably:
Don't be evil unless it makes money than being good,
but never admit to evil or talk about it in any way.
Are there times when it's helpful to say "stop being such a crybaby"? You betcha! That's the only way to move away from over indulgence in our selves, a decidedly big problem in this day and age.
Is anyone saying "stop being such a crybaby" is the solution for all problems? No way. And certainly not the Buddhist way.
You can't reject your ego, you can only detach from it. Egolessness and egofullness are two sides of the same coin. And fabrications of the mind, if you will, are all that there is. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Reality and illusion are the same thing. Buddhism is really trying to teach you to honor and understand your thoughts, emotions, and ego as fundamental parts of the human body you live in, not to destroy or be impervious to them. It's not about escaping from your life but living more fully within it. If somewhat is afraid, ask why? How does the experience of fear feel? Is it connected to other emotions? What thoughts accompany it? What experiences from childhood are connected?
What are loving kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity if not emotion?
My choice of words is intended to convey their meaning in everyday parlance. If I seek egolessness over egofullness, is that not a rejection of the latter over the former in everyday parlance?
As you have correctly stated, Buddhism is not about escaping from life but meeting it head on. I don't think I've said anything that would suggest I'm for escaping.
Things which are polar opposites are actually identical, in this case 0% ego and 100% ego, because 0% ego is all about how spiritually pure you are, a.k.a. 100% ego. I'm sure you've met some of the seemingly enlightened meditators I'm talking about. Buddhism teaches you to deal with this paradox or duality and others like it by seeking the middle road. Some ego is good, not too much, not too little. That's all I was reacting to, I probably could've been nicer about it.
"That's all I was reacting to, I probably could've been nicer about it." Not at all, you were nice enough. :)
Yes going beyond the everyday meaning of the words we use, I agree with you fully. I'm just a beginner on the path, full of the fabrications and paradoxes we all live with, and I'm really looking forward to having them all blown away, or more likely - dissolved - as I dive deeper into it. Ah, aspiration!
Does anyone else feel kind of confused and guilty when they read this? It just seems so condescending to me.
I like eating and sleeping. I pay a lot of attention to these things. If you're eating well and sleeping well, your life is probably going pretty good. Sure, I'm going to die, that's why food and sleep matter even more. This planet would be a pretty happy place if everyone was eating and sleeping as much as they needed.
Second, what the heck. Too lazy to work on perfecting myself? I thought spiritual enlightenment was about having a smaller ego, not a bigger one. I'm going to feel more motivated if I focus on how awesome I'll be if I do the inner work? You can't do this stuff for very long because you want to get something out of it, you only do it in the long term because circumstances push you into it and you have no choice.
Third, details vs. essentials. Details are bad now? You won't get far with only one or the other. Yes, essentials are important, but so are details. In startup terms, a great idea is essential, but you're dead without a great execution.
Anyway, "laziness" is such a crap word in a spiritual context. As if enlightenment was an achievement, when the point of just about every religion is being, not doing.
Eat. Sleep. Give yourself a break when you hit a wall; perhaps you ought to re-evaluate your priorities. Do a thorough and meticulous job on all of your little projects. Pay attention to what you're doing, and you'll come out of it all the wiser. Lack of progress in any one area is not laziness, it's a signal that you need to try a different course of action.
Firstly, everyone understands the difference between healthy sleeping/eating versus sloth and gluttony. Everything in moderation right?
Secondly, you confuse ego with self-importance. A poor ego doubts itself and may never attempt a daunting task because of the belief one is not 'good enough' to complete it. This becomes a convienient excuse to avoid doing difficult (but worthwhile) tasks. A healthy ego will undertake challenging tasks, because failure (in the traditional sense) is ok - failure will not define you as a person. The success comes from learning along the way.
Thirdly, we all have to do trivial things. This is a fact of life. However, how many times have you focussed on non-essential details in a project to avoid the meat of the thing? Its a common form of procrastination I catch myself doing. You also see it in overstuffed corporate environments - the term 'busy work' comes to mind.
Look, the non-essential details here are all the particulars of this conversation about some religious precepts. The essence is that you and I trying to connect on a human level to each other across the internet for some reason or another. Both the essence and the details are important.
It's not really about what you do, it's about what you see and how you do it; the essence is always there, even if you're fixing idiotic bugs in some obscure corner of your codebase.
Straw men belong on a field where the dictator would have sent the dissidents to farm by force.
"Stealing" is "stealing". "Taxes" are not "stealing". "Taxes" are what is used to pay for the services used by and benefit the people. Money collected under whatever other label you give that is not used for these purposes is "stealing".
From my perspective I was giving a counterexample to challenge the claim that all theft is unlawful.
You're saying that if legal money collection benefits society it is "tax", but if it does not benefit society it is "stealing"? Sure, if you split the words that denote legal money collection into these two forms, then tax is not theft. I simply define tax as legal money collection.
I'm not anti-tax, btw, but neither do I subscribe to the view that just because a government passes a particular money collection law that it's a just law.
It shouldn't be the law just because government passes, but I like to think our government isn't so broken that laws are passed with complete disregard to majority consensus.
But I don't think it's hair-splitting to call the collection of funds for the benefit of society (and actually used for societal projects) taxes and those collected to stuff the coffers of politicians and their cronies as stealing.
In other governments, where order is kept at the end of a barrel rather than with a vote, I imagine stealing takes place quite flagrantly, but then the rest of the wouldn't call that a "tax" at all (secretly, those citizens would also call that stealing).
Well, ok, two things. First, it sounds like we basically agree that legal theft is possible. Second, even in the US there is corporate lobbying to influence government spending, which amounts to taxation without representation (i.e. theft), and moreover there is a revolving door between government and industry, particularly with the military which is where 50% of our tax money goes. At least, it is bad enough that Lawrence Lessig has moved on from fighting copyright concerns to fighting corruption in Washington.
I used to think the split between vim and emacs users was roughly 50/50, but reading posts here it seems more like 90/10. Why is it that people here prefer vim to emacs? I'm not asking why is vim better than emacs, but what is it about HN that means more vim users. Certainly in free software circles emacs is equally popular. Is it just a cultural thing where people tend to stick with what they first learned and what their coworkers are using?
Vim is a nifty editor, using Emacs is for most a major investment in adapting your workflow to it, Emacs users tend to want to do everything possible in it. Of course you can use Emacs as just another editor, but the culture around it is to use as a multi-purpose toolbox. It's not so strange that Emacs users would be fewer but far more invested.
For Vim users the keybindings are essential, but for most the scripts aren't that important, that's why other editors can seduce them by offering vi keybindings. But an Emacs user shivers at the thought of losing all their elisp.
> But an Emacs user shivers at the thought of losing all their elisp.
For one's own machine yes, for editing on somebody else's or on a server... meh. I'd sooner have a barebones emacs (aka mg) than have to use vi, if only because I'll corrupt half the file in about 10 seconds in vi.
I think it's partially a cultural thing and partially, the fact that one is an editor and the other one a bit closer to a lifestyle choice. Even if you just google them and read the snippets - vim will tell you that it's a vi clone and looking for vi will say "vi is a screen-oriented text editor originally created for the Unix operating system."
Emacs will tell you it's an "extensible, customizable, self-documenting real-time display editor." That's quite a mouthful, especially if all you had in mind was to edit some text. And I say this with all the nostalgic affection of a long-time emacs user.
I don't know about HN readers ratio, but I am split 50/50. Vim feels better when editing code and has many things right out-of-the-box. Emacs offers much more features in a more integrated way, but is heavy-weight, has to be customized, and has it's kludges.
So I use Emacs or Vim according to my current mood. Also, although Evil is an awesome piece of work, the fact that some buffers cannot use that mode breaks the workflow too much for me.
Weirdly Sublime Text is one of the few text editors that I not only dislike, but struggle to understand the appeal that others have with it (and I say weirdly, because even with the other editors that I disliked, I've at least understood the appeal of them from an academic perspective).
The last time I tried ST2, it jarred with my system themes and didn't offer any additional functionality that wasn't already present with the other editors that I used at that time. Plus the other editors were open source where as ST2 was shareware (I'm guessing that may have changed now given the number of people who currently use it?)
I'm open to having my opinion changed though - if one of the Sublime Text fans want to put their case forward :) (Or at least better relating to why it's become so popular)
Try to thinks about the whole class of editors defined by Textmate, Sublime Text and E-TextEditor. It's mainly about offering all the features of something like Notepad++ (easy to use menus and settings, arbitrary multiple cursors, support for easy to use plugins without touching config files), plus:
- offering that unnamed aesthetic quality of "UX flow" (ie. try looking form something in Notepad++'s settings panes - Eclipse will seem nice and clean in comparison!)
- being cross platform and easily runnable from a memory stick
- having what feels like "no learning curve" - you can basically move from Eclipse or VS and be productive in Sublime Text from second 0, and achieve enough productivity to actually be in "coding flow" after just 1hr spent learning the shortcuts and hunting for needed plugins
- following the "don't make me think!" philosophy: this basically restates the first and the previous points and captures in one sense the "unnamed quality" that this class of editors aspires to. I you want to understand "the zen" of this, think of the multiple cursors workflow where you'd catr+click 3 different places and start typing and the alternative would be doing a regex-based search and replace on a selection (or a bloody copy paste to the 2nd and 3rd location, I know... but pretend you didn't think of this :) ), but his would actually require you to "think" about what you are doing, therefore breaking the "don't make me think" philosophy.
...all I've said above has many holes, but I understand the appeal of Sublime Text (and I actually use it - it's my favorite tool for editing plain text files, yaml files or html/js/php soup). Though, for real work, nothing beats a decent IDE with a good Vim emulation plugin :)
> multiple cursors workflow where you'd catr+click 3 different places and start typing and the alternative would be doing a regex-based search and replace on a selection
Oh so that's what multiple cursors are for! People kept telling me that sublime supports multiple cursors and I could never understand what the hell I would do with multiple cursors.
Not that your example makes me want them any more than before, though.
True that. I tried getting into the whole Vim/Emacs war. While Vim seemed relatively easy (I already had some experience with Vi) Emacs was a chore to work with.
Sublime Text gets the job done, fast and painlessly.
I wanted a default tool I could find and use on any machine I connected to. vim is always there, even on servers.
I wanted something I could use over SSH, even on really bad connections such as mobile. vim works great over poor connections.
I barely use plugins, and seldom configure syntax highlighting.
On the desktop I may use vim, but tend to use Sublime Text for everything. Go, Java, HTML, CSS, JavaScript (node and browser)... Sublime Text serves me really well and works the way I want to work. Before Sublime Text I was 100% vim, after Sublime Text I'm 80/20 ST/vim.
But for whenever there isn't ST, vim is always there.
This argument made sense 20 years ago, when it was quite possible that you'd fine yourself on some weird IRIX machine that had nothing much installed, but you could be sure vi was there.
These days, apt-get install emacs or the redhat equivalent is not really a problem.
> I wanted something I could use over SSH,
Emacs has a remote connection mode, so that you fetch the file, edit it locally, and then save it to the remote machine.
It still applies, servers I connect to tend to be locked enough that users are unable to install stuff. The user (me) would need to get a ticket opened to have it added to the config, whereas vim is already there.
And on the latter, if the issue is a live server needing immediate attention and a config change, and I'm mobile and using my Android device and have the rights to edit a file and the access certificate locally I could just do it in vim in moments over SSH. Whereas I've no clue as to what app I'd need to install on my phone to act as a passable editor for the file, and why retrieve a whole file (potentially large config) when you just want to make a one-line change? vim just works for my use-case, no config required, no local app required, just edit the file, save it, test and be done.
Both of those solutions just feel clunky, why fight to use Emacs when you could just use vim? Hence, I just use vim, it works, I'm happy as the job is done.
They're not any clunkier than the solutions you were preferring. I think what's happened here is that you've found a solution that works for you and your happy with. Which is fine. But you're then trying to rationalize why your solution is "better" when really your solution is just personal preference.
However with that all said and done, I'm a vi use myself. I've never seen the point of learning emacs because I like vi, I'm quick in vi and I'm happy with vi. But if I'd learned emacs before I learned vi, then I'm sure I'd be saying the same thing but :%s/vi/emacs/g
I for one wanted to do some tedious non automatable box editing over ssh, emacs have a default extension (mode?) to do this which did not worked in the terminal, tried some quick stuff on config, did not work. Every page I found on how to fix the stuff forced me to read for more time than I had to do the task, I just did it with vim.
I'm just trying to learn some emacs and although I see its value, the emacs experience is not for me, my vimrc is like every other config file that I have, a bare minimum. People who use emacs generally tweak the editor with thousand of lines of elisp.
I use Emacs for org mode and other things that I want to run in a terminal that I can stuff into Emacs, such as an IRC client. I use Vim for code editing. Sure, you can use Evil, but I feel like Vim is more than keybindings. I love Vim for the whole package, the Vim way of doing things and you can't get that using just Vim keybindings.
I use Tmux for managing multiple sessions, so I generally have a lot of Vim sessions going at one time. Emacs is just another session for me, so it's a regular part of my workflow to switch back and forth.
I think that's almost 100% cultural thing. I know both editors quite well now, and to learn them I had to read tons of people's posts and such. In Emacs (unofficial) writings I saw much more "holier-than-thou" attitude, similar to what they call "smug lisp weenies". Vim's writings are down to earth, focused on pragmatics and making no unneeded comparisons.
While technically Emacs users and advocates are right, they lose big time in "marketing" or "public relations". I don't really think that this is going to be fixed.
I started out using vim because when I first looked at it and emacs, vim seemed like the more elegant of the two. I tried both out one afternoon, and the commands in vim made more sense to me than those in emacs. But after taking a class where we were basically forced to use emacs, I've really come to appreciate it more and have found myself much more productive in it than in vim.
I prefer Emacs, but sometimes think Vim works better on laptops as everything is right under your fingers. Emacs is much more comfortable on a full-size keyboard. So I wonder whether there's any correlation between Emacs/desktop and Vim/laptop.
There was a post (or was it a comment) here a couple months ago about Emacs/Vim users and the sizes of their hands.
I have tiny hands and when I tried (still trying every now and then) to learn Emacs, I found it difficult to execute its keyboard commands. Trying it on a mechanical keyboard was even worse.
I had a similar issue until getting a HHKB[1] some years ago. The extremely compact design with full-sized keys made it much easier to coax my hands into dancing through emacs' chords.
As "buy an expensive keyboard to possibly make learning emacs easier" is the advice of the mad, I would suggest that you be fearless in rebinding things. Learning the default bindings is far less important than learning the functionality of emacs and how to extend and customise it.
my whole office use emacs for clojure dev but I use vim. I tried emacs for a few days on more than one occasions but simply couldn't bear the physical awkwardness of the key combos (I did remap ctrl to caps).
I'm glad someone mentioned this. I used emacs for years and was totally ignorant of vi/vim, but I started getting pain in my hand from all the key-combos. I was skeptical of modes, but it turns out to be pretty natural, and I actually like the concept of editing as a sequence of transactions with a start and end, rather than one continuous stream. I've never gone overboard with customizing either editor, so for me it was primarily ergonomics.
I use emacs but I also dislike the "you can rebind any keys you want, as long as the sequence begins with C-c". As it turns out emacs doesn't user the super key at all (Apple key on Mac keyboards, Windows key [I think?] on Other). You can dramatically increase the number of comfortable chords available to you by taking advantage of this, e.g.:
(global-set-key (kbd "s-l") 'forward-word)
While the OS-specific keys are sometimes called super, they are not "super" in emacs terminology. Also, if you skim M-x describe-bindings you will find quite a few bindings beginning with s-.
EDIT: If you really want access to a less crowded namespace, using (global-set-key "\C-z" nil) to free up the c-z prefix and binding Hyper are popular.
If you are feeling a little confined, key chord[1] will allow you to get creative with your bindings.
Not using a Super key is actually a great feature. My Super key is used solely in the AwesomeWM (a window manager) commands, so the two (awesome and emacs) never clash on who will handle a key combination.
I was very unpleasantly surprised when I discovered that OS X uses a single Control key for some of its hotkeys (like C-up/down) which I bind in Emacs for my own purposes.
Well, I must be very confused, then, because I don't see where the input comes in given just the s, k and i combinators. (The Jot programming language, which can be translated into SKI, for instance, doesn't do input or output. You want the Zot variant for that.) How would one write a program, using just s, k, i, and application, that takes the name of a file on the command line, opens it and reads it in, then prints the lines in reverse order to stdout?
If you really wanted to do pure SKI, you'd have to do more than just a program: you'd have to implement the whole machine and the OS running on it. You could do that, but as you might imagine, it's quite a lot of work.
That said, keep in mind that most likely, you'd want to start implementing levels of abstraction pretty early on. The fact that SKI is Turing-equivalent means that you can implement a Turing machine (or anything else that is Turing-equivalent) in it. Build your favorite abstraction, and then implement your machine and OS the way you would using that abstraction. It's still SKI underneath, so you're golden.
Maybe so, but that completely gives the lie to the idea that two languages are equipotent if they're both Turing complete. The sorts of abstractions you'd need to implement go far beyond what's required for Turing completeness
Unlambda, for instance, is Turing complete, and moreover, it can do I/O. An Unlambda program is nevertheless incapable of opening files or doing different things depending on its command-line arguments. You can write cat (the version of cat that just echoes stdin to stdout) in Unlambda, but not ls.
You might be able to write an Unlambda-based operating system in which all the various sorts of input events that an OS needs to respond to are represented as elements in its input stream (or, even better, an OS in Lazy-K).
But when you've got that OS up and running, Unlambda programs running on it still won't be able to open files. (Frankly I'd be surprised if the "abstractions" necessary to get something like that up and running weren't essentially an interpreter written in another language dealing with the encoding and decoding of input and output to your Unlambda/Lazy-K program, rather than abstractions written in Unlambda/Lazy-K. (Consider that the numbers that Lazy-K outputs are church encoded and must be converted by the Lazy-K interpreter into C-like integers before characters can be output to stdout.) This isn't really important, though.)
Consider also this final note from the Lazy-K page:
"Remove output entirely. You still have a Turing-complete language this way, and it is if anything more elegant. But, as with the equally elegant SMETANA, you can't do anything with it except stare at it in admiration, and the novelty of that wears off after a few minutes."
That's not really true, of course: there are other things you can do, like increase the temperature of your processor. Not many other things, though.
I'm sure you've heard this before, but all you have to do is ask whether you can build a Turing machine in whatever language. If you can do this, then you can compute answers to the same things computed by any other Turing complete language.
This says nothing about practicality, but nobody ever said it did. Of course practicality is important, but a conversation about Turing completeness is a conversation about "can compute", not "can easily compute". If you look at venues such as POPL, ESOP, and PLDI, fairly often you will find proofs for some abstract representation that is then implemented in a real world language. Thus while it would be impractical to compute something in the abstract form, it is often more elegant for proof construction, and then proof results are transferable if you can demonstrate bisimulation between the two forms. All this to say that "can compute" is nevertheless an important determination with respect to equipotency.
If you had an Unlambda OS (or VM is better perhaps), then anything running on it would be an Unlambda program, including C programs, just as anything running on an x86 machine is an x86 program.
"I'm sure you've heard this before, but all you have to do is ask whether you can build a Turing machine in whatever language. If you can do this, then you can compute answers to the same things computed by any other Turing complete language."
But you can't do the same things that you can do in other languages.
I have never encountered this distinction between activity and computation before. Assuming that you are okay to define (sequential) computation as transforming an input sequence of 1's and 0's into an output sequence of 1's and 0's, can you give me an example of something that a computer does that is not a computation and explain why?
>This says nothing about practicality, but nobody ever said it did.
Tons of people "said it did".
It's a BS argument they use all the time. "Language X is turing complete, so you can build Y language's abstractions there too, so I don't see the need for Y".
Matter of fact, it's the very BS argument that started this sub-thread.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I was referring to this sentiment by Millennium, who started this thread as far as I can tell:
"But once you stray from awk's niche, things start to get awkward, and the further you go, the tougher it gets."
It is important to understand the distinction between possibility and feasibility. Or the difference between theory and practice, if you will. Even though they are opposites, both are important at the same time.
While it's not feasible for humans to move Mt. Everest, it certainly would be possible.
Thank you. That formalizes a lot of what I've been thinking, but have been unable to say, in discussions revolving around Turing-completeness.
It gets kinda frustrating when actual I/O considerations get waved away as "irrelevant" or "implementation issues".
I remember another discussion where someone said he wrote an IRC chatbot "in brainfuck". Wait, brainfuck can do internet access now??? "Well, I mean, I set up an IRC socket using a real language and hooked the brainfuck code's standard I/O into it ..."
I don't understand how your reply addresses anything kenko said. I agree with kenko and I wish people would stop bringing turing completeness/equivalence into discussions about what languages can do what. Turing completeness is inconsequential in such discussions; we're talking about what's practical and reasonable to do in each language. I wish people would stop trying to impress us with academic tangents.
The site's called Hacker News for a reason, and it caters to entrepreneurs for the same reason. We're already people with something of a penchant for not caring about the "practical" or "reasonable," or even considering that to be a challenge.
But if we're going to talk about what is practical and reasonable, then let's look back at awk's niche: prying data out of line-oriented text files. For that particular task, C and the basic lisps rank among my languages of last resort: assembler (pick an architecture) would be worse, but that's just about it. There are libraries for these languages which would help significantly, but my awk script would be finished and halfway through the dataset by the time I even got the build environment set up for these languages, and the code would still be more clear.
Like I said, the right tool for the job. For many tasks -most, actually- awk would not be very high on my list of languages to try. But find a task that hits awk's sweet spot, and nothing beats it.
> Vim is certainly worth more than 100 euro (original title)
The monetary value of a copy of free / open source software is effectively zero, provided that at least some people are distributing it without restrictions and free of charge such that it is readily available.
Look into producer and consumer surplus. In any exchange, you'll tend to find that the value of the items exchanged are worth more to the receiving party than the giving party. It's practically essential to agreeing to a trade.
The consumer surplus is the excess value the buyer receives. Think "I would have paid €5 for that drink right now, but they only charged me €2!"
The producer surplus is how much more someone paid than the producer was willing to sell it for.
The same thing can be worth different amounts to different people. Airlines in particular are good at price discrimination: trying to extract as high a price as possible, capturing the possible consumer surplus. Universities too.
Lots of things get no-haggle prices that ignore this difference between price and value.
So you're saying that this person was implying that even though the price is 0 euro, the consumer surplus is greater than 100 euro? I can understand this reasoning, so thanks for explaining it. I'm not sure I believe that consumer surplus can be measured outside of controlled psychology experiments, since it's only speculation and talk is cheap.
I guess I always thought that the value (or worth - these are the same, right?) of something in an efficient market is its last sale price, and because vim is widely available for free it's an efficient market with a last sale price of zero.
I would agree with, "The value / worth you derive from your use of vim is greater than 100 euro, assuming you actively use at least one of your vim installations." But then again you could say something similar about most common free or nearly free tools and consumables, for example cutlery, oxygen, and linux.
I think the efficiency of markets is based around marginal costs and benefits, not absolute costs and benefits. The cost of goods are set by looking at the intersection of the people willing and able to supply the good, and the set of people willing to pay for the good. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
But the point is that you've found an equilibrium in the system with the current price, current suppliers, and current customers. There are customers would would have happily paid more. There are people who WOULD have bought the good if it cost less, but it doesn't so they didn't. There are people who are happily supplying it and making mad bank. There are people who are supplying it and making a razor-thin margin. There are people who WOULD supply it if the available price were higher, so they're not supplying it right now. The price is an efficient equilibrium point, but it's not the global arbiter of value.
I understand when it comes to something that is normally bought and sold, but I guess it changes for me when it comes to something that is normally given away for free and never sold, except as part of a larger system such as OS X or enterprise Linux.
First, value is relative. To my grand mother, Vim has no value. Second, it is true that the price in an efficient market tends to approach the value most consumers will get out of the product (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand). That being said, the value a consumer assigns to a product is always superior to the actual price he is paying, otherwise, why would he bother with the transaction at all? Hence the consumer surplus.
To come back to the original topic at hand, I believe many Vim users value Vim at well over 100 euros. Worth usually refers to value rather than price and this why I believe some people down voted you although you were technically right that Vim's price is 0. Water is not worthless although it is free, etc.
I'm not an economist but that's how I understand it.
It still falls free from the sky. People make claims on it after that point. How extreme these claims can get only shows how different price and value are.
> I believe in our product, but I don't believe in our business model.
This sounds like you'd be okay if the business model was different. Tell them that either the business model changes or you're leaving. Then it's up to them whether you leave. You may or may not be able to negotiate interpersonal problems.
http://imgur.com/a/mN8Zs
Apparently a journalist asked one family in each of 20 different countries to gather all of the food they bought in one week and take a picture. It's a fascinating look at global diets. The UK is even more disturbing than the US.