bort @ bort @feddit.de

Posts

2

Comments

129

Joined

2 yr. ago

thanks. I forgot about that. But I'd like to add, that this models kind of feels like "donations with extra steps" to me. i.e. you can get it for free, but you choose to pay the developer even though you have to.

evolution could happen in jumps. How often that happens is debatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

because of all the socialist propaganda in it?

there is plenty open source software, that you can buy. There are many modes:

• you buy the support (redhead)
• you buy the long-term-support (ubuntu)
• you pay for backports to old releases (keycloak iirc)
• there is a open source version, and you can pay for enterprise features and hosting (gitlab)
• there is an open source version, and you pay for customization (star office, iirc)

and my personal favorit:

• you pay a random developer to submit pullrequests for bugs that are relevant to you

full-spectrum lighting

this doesn't sound true.

iirc full spectrum means "every wavelength" (like sunlight) and not just "3 wavelengths that add up to white".

You vote with your wallets. Each time you buy a phone without SD cart, you are submitting a ballot.

Seriously. phones are 99% identical anyways. It's not so hard to filter for the 2-3 criteria you actually care about.

is this true?

oh nice. If this trend continues, they will be by 4 million tommorrow and 20 million next week and by summer every human on earth will have an account.

I think many of them simply got converted to sub ways and such.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suburban_and_commuter_rail_systems

Fraud is still fraud, even if they call it something else.

The consumer was led to believe, they could access the media for a long time. The time was abruptly cut short. The consumer did not get what they were led to believe. It's fraud.

It's like every other (consumer-)fraud before: they can write in the fine print whatever they want.

I am not saying that this argument will definitely hold up in court. I just want to point out, that it's not so clear-cut as you are presenting it.

tiny bit of a germaphobe

iirc salt is a has antimicrobial properties. So if anything, then licking that salt, will reduce the germs in your mouth. So a true germaphobe would be all over that lamp

are you sure you don't want to share an indirect kiss with all her past tinder dates?

mr villains day of

not watching this one, because I can’t relate to the cuteness or gayness

does not compute.

Is that one of these sentences, that are grammatically correct, but semantically nonsense? like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously

which one?

I feel you. I am down like 12€ at this point

It is blatant plagiarism

yes, and a solution could have been to cite sources.

This was no innocent mistake of forgetting to list a source

I don't think, that not-citing-sources is an innocent mistake.

Watch the hbomberguy video segment about it, it paints a very clear picture

I did. I does paint a very colorful picture. Full of opinion and sarcasm and rhethoric.

Here is a rule-of-thumb to decide if an argument was convincing because it had good content, or because it was well written: If the content was good, it will be easy for you explain to a 3rd party. If only the presentation was good, then you will have a hard time convincing others.

guy covers historical event doesn't rewrite history, instead takes what someone else has written about event doesn't use own fotos, uses someone elses foto instead makes mistakes

I am not saying this is a big nothing burger, but his only real mistakes was not to list his sources.

we only call them Arabic numerals, with a lowercase n,

[x] doubt

wat