Effect can also be a verb. You can effect change, and thus affect people’s lives.
Effect can also be a verb. You can effect change, and thus affect people’s lives.
What exactly is the utility of the above quote of yours then?
To show that the correlation is spurious at best.
Has it become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?
Yes, it has. Usage of Linux has been growing over the years.
My point is exactly that. It’s not obvious, and as such you can’t attribute the success of Linux to his behaviour. Like the OP said, there’s no logic in looking at something successful and picking a singular thing to be responsible.
How is that obvious? Especially because it’s become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?
The analogy is that the end result doesn’t justify the behaviour from the person in power. It’s apt.
But did it work because of the style or in spite of it? No reason to believe it wouldn’t be even more successful if he had been less abrasive like he is now.
It’s not a comparison, it’s an analogy. Important distinction.
They’re different things. The OP means electromagnetism, Coulomb’s law has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, it’s classical physics.
The relation between them is that they’re both forces that scale with the inverse square of the distance between the objects. Any force that scales with the inverse square of distance has pretty much the same general form.
Another similarity is that both are incomplete, first approximations that describe their respective forces. The more complete versions are Maxwell’s laws for electromagnetism and General Relativity for gravity.
It’s electromagnetism you mean, not quantum mechanics.
H2O, not H20.