I... these are all good points, but... did we read the same article?
Article seems to ignore that FOSS projects tend not to have the budget to create the UX that VC-funded projects can. ... I find prioritizing UX over sharing of source code to be misguided.
The author specifically calls attention to this exact point:
If a weirdo guy moved into your kitchen and blocked you from grabbing a spoon whenever you wanted and instead rented them out to you provided you only ate the gruel he provided, the people who would be most able to see the absurdity in that would be be the people who remember what it was like before. Those who grew up with that system would be “whaddayamean? This is super convienient. I just stick my hand in the kitchen and a spoonful of gruel is shoved into it. Like it, love it, want more of it”. They’d be like “people who don’t have a spoon guy are so gross and so dumb. What the heck are they even? Doing rifling through their own cutlery drawer like some sorta eggheads”.
I created an account (or rather an identity) on there a while back because I was intrigued by the hyper-decentralized aspect. It attracts the exact sort of people you would expect a blockchain-based zero-moderation platform to attract.
"Yes, Donald Trump is an existential threat to a large number of groups of vulnerable Americans. But have you considered Kamala Harris also bad? If you vote for either one this November you hate Gazans"
Of course they can. Dictionaries are not the Bible. They exist to describe how words are used, not how they should be used. Words' meaning changes over time ("gay" meant "happy" in the 20th century, to use the tired example) and new words get added to the dictionary every day (most dictionary websites have little blurbs showing words they've recently added). Dictionaries have historically, and continue to, change in response to how people use words, not the other way around. If your entire argument rests on the dictionary definition of the word "protest" not explicitly mentioning that to be considered a protest, something must be disruptive, it's not a very good argument.
It also fails to consider that methods of convincing people who would rather simply ignore the issue to care about it that are not disruptive are few and far between.
Ah yes, the massively disruptive tactic of checks notes saying genocide is 1) bad and 2) happening prior to playing a piano piece. You're right, he's really crossed the line this time. How can he ever expect to garner support like that?
He's almost as bad as the people with megaphones and signs marching and repeating chants!
And when exactly did "people turn it into" that? The purpose of a picket line is to be disruptive, and people have been doing those for over a century.
EDIT: Okay, using an entire image as a texture which an image references, allowing you to do pseudo-3D texturing on a 2D pixel sprite is pretty sick, I gotta admit
To clarify, though, we do not need scientists to tell lawmakers that bees are not fish. We need scientists to tell lawmakers not to put conservation laws into effect that only cover fish, and then not publish any new ones so we have to keep expanding that one by reclassifying more and more things as fish.
I... these are all good points, but... did we read the same article?
The author specifically calls attention to this exact point: