intrepid @ intrepid @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

275

Joined

2 yr. ago

Of course it's him. All other billionaire sociopaths have the sense to stay silent about the dystopian future they dream of. But honestly, he doesn't get the negative attention he deserves.

There will be another king or queen after him. Cancer does nothing to challenge the monarchy. On the other hand, cancer is not something anyone should suffer from.

We did that with some of them. But there are also a lot of 'royalists' out there.

What do you mean anything better? This is what conservative politicians everywhere do when they have nothing to show for progress. They inflame religious tensions and exploit the resulting emotions - especially the hatred and the feeling of betrayal to win elections. The real sad part is that those emotions linger far longer than their intended consequence. People will die.

Parents should always have the right to remove their child from a situation they do not agree with.

At some point, the child would start thinking for themselves and their decisions should be given value too, as long as it isn't illegal or detrimental. Far too often, we hear of children wanting vaccine shots but parents not allowing them to.

Imagine having your life cut short and sent back to your family in a coffin to cause them immeasurable grief. All that for what? To satisfy the ego and greed of a tyrant who doesn't give 2 shillings worth of value to your life or your family's welfare? This is why nations glorify soldiers and wars. Sometimes, they're necessary to defend peace and the rule of law of the land. But most often, it's to gaslight young people to become worthless pawns in the ego trip of some pathologically narcissistic and sociopathic individuals. Be wary of the charlatans who sell nationalism and praise soldiers - they're scheming cowards looking for ways to avoid the same. Despite what they teach you, nationalism and honor are just tools to control you.

You're right of course. But just to add - 'reproducible builds' is an ongoing attempt to make hash comparisons practical.

It doesn't matter how much you insult him. He and his ilk will never get it. Their entire families are born with a genetic defect that makes them incapable of having or understanding empathy.

Yet folks often say their $0 software is free software because gratis. Words evolve/change & only mean what the folks think it means.

You are still continuing to question a well defined standard meaning over vague technicalities. Lack of gratis/libre separation is an English language problem. That is no excuse to hijack a standard terminology when a better term like 'source available' is present. The only reason for insisting on such hijacks is for deliberate misdirection and exploitation.

To say it’s not open to interpretation is silly.

Oh! So you are going to interpret the meaning of a dollar? Or the size of a legal sized paper? After all, they are centralized definitions and you don't subscribe to any of those. If saying it's not open to interpretation is silly, insisting on absence of standard definitions is sheer stupidity.

To assume the ideas they first put out long ago never need a revision or update or were infallible missing no changes to software/society is a religion.

You are still beating around the bush. Standardization is necessary. If that's a religion, it's much more acceptable to a world where people live like cave animals who can't communicate anything meaningfully due to lack of agreed upon standard terms.

they want to actually take on your enshrined terms like “free” & “open source” because there is not a better word to describe what they are proposing, then I don’t see a problem other than possible confusion

my enshrined terms? LOL! I gave very well defined and well known places where they are defined. Instead, your kind resort to misdirection and dishonesty to exploit established norms. Somebody doing AI training is merely an excuse to justify such malpractices. A tactic those AI companies pioneered and you share with them.

GNU does not own a monopoly on the definition of free software.

Terming it as a 'monopoly' doesn't invalidate what it is. FSF's definition of Free software is what's accepted as canonical definition of free software - just as OSI's definition is accepted as the definition of open source. The entire analysis of FOSS ecosystem is based on these definitions. It's not open to interpretation. You can't claim victory by insisting on accepting a falsehood as the truth.

It wouldn’t be hard to argue that capitalist exploitation of the commons ruins the freedoms many would like to see.

That's not an excuse for misrepresenting the motives of a project. If you don't want capitalists not using your work, you're free to restrict that. What you are not free to do is to claim it as free software. You can't have it both ways.

NC is not free software by any definition. Here's the reference: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CC-BY-NC

Many licenses like GPL need copyright to be specified. Regardless, copyright statement won't affect how you license the content.

Just a note - NC (noncommercial) and ND (non-derivative) would make it non-FOSS. CC BY-SA (share alike) is FOSS compatible.

Why would any other company complain?

Forget making it open source. There's no other app or platform with so many dark patterns. Their web app is utter crap on mobile in an attempt to push users to the mobile app. The last thing we need is another social media company twisting the hands of its users. People should simply abandon that crapware.

He might be the very reason that phrase was invented, considering how many innocent young lives he took.

I think Henry Kissinger is one of those unifying things. It's amazing, black or white, communist or capitalist, east or west...

Oh! Is that why they gave him the Nobel piss prize?

There's a mythical story (Greek or Roman) where a goddess managed to get her human lover an eternal life, but forgot to ask for eternal youth. This oversight led to the horror where he watched his beautiful young lover from afar while he lost all grace, prominence and influence while withering away into an eternal life of suffering.

Honestly, that is what this old goat deserved. Not the peaceful death that he got.

I don't think you understand the psychology of sociopaths like him. They care neither for anyone's suffering nor for anyone's opinion about them. They care only for the pleasure they derive from the pain they inflict. He probably spent his last waking hours reminiscing over the glory days of the massacres he started.

The world would have been a better place if somebody had made a better decision 101 years ago.