Where did the exploding-heads people go?
mo_ztt ✅ @ mo_ztt @lemmy.world Posts 40Comments 673Joined 2 yr. ago
mo_ztt ✅ @ mo_ztt @lemmy.world
Posts
40
Comments
673
Joined
2 yr. ago
I could be wrong, but I don't think it's a bridge -- I think this is just what happens when someone on Mastodon tags a Lemmy community. ActivityPub has wonderful results in terms of making a decentralized web possible, but honestly it seems to me like it's not real well designed.
They don’t want their own instance, they want to troll everyone else.
I think there is a strong analogy to be made vis-à-vis spending your energy on regulating other people's sex lives or abortion rights or ability to come into the country or not, versus just living your own life and making it rewarding.
I think it's even more severe than that. I think in the American version, each of them places their own individual selves on top of their own little hierarchy (whether white or not or whatever), and everyone else is in the "no rights" group. That's why they booed Trump when he talked about the vaccine instead of suddenly falling into line 1984-style behind the new idea. That's why they were genuinely confused by the capitol police fighting back against them -- you hear over and over again in videos people saying things like "We're on your side" to the cops, like they genuinely expected the cops in the capitol building to suddenly turn around and become part of the mob that was in their mind "the good guys."
IDK, maybe it was always that way. But I feel like with classical fascism there was some kind of genuine awareness of the reality of what they were asking for. Say whatever you want about Hitler; he was in the infantry, he saw quite a lot of combat, he wasn't scared of physical confrontation. Trump talks a big game but he mostly pussies out if it comes to any kind of real confrontation, and his followers are inspired likewise. Look at the tiny size of the post-January-6th rallies in support of Trump; his movement is still dangerous because a lot of them have appetite for doing anonymous violent things, but for the most part they don't seem like they're down for street fighting or going to prison or things that might come right back at them.
Fingerprinting doesn't necessarily mean something nefarious, although in this case it's a little weird. I've used those scripts which track users' mouse movements and clicks so I can replay visits, just to evaluate how the site is working, and uBlock tends to throw a fit when it finds them on my sites (which I guess is what it's supposed to do, but still doesn't mean anything bad was going to happen with the data.)
This is clearly concerning as hell. It's extremely dangerous. But that said, I think it's hilarious how this same grouping that wants violence to be okay in their politics still gets extremely bent out of shape when any violence happens towards them.
"HANG MIKE PENCE (if he doesn't do exactly what we want under threat of violence)!"
(Ashli Babbit)
"HOW DARE THEY! THEY HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS!"
Like, my guy, if Biden had some agents show up at your door and point guns at you and asked "Oh okay, so we can kill politically inconvenient people if we feel like now?" you'd feel a completely different way.
Depending on the nature of the changes, it might be more advantageous to tell them that it's easier (i.e. cheaper) to contribute changes upstream, rather than maintaining them separately forever. Also, the good will and reputation boost involved can be significant.
Don't say it if it isn't true or anything, but in a lot of cases it's true.
Previously, they made a rotary mount for parts they were working on so that they could precisely machine rounded corners at specific spots by spinning it in-place.
In this video, they made two little jigs for the rotary mount that can be easily slid around in both X and Y dimensions, to position parts on the mount, and that will automatically keep themselves at right angles so everything on the machined part will stay squared-off.
I think mostly they prefer for people to just fix their delivery to comply with the license, as opposed to causing antagonism towards the community by going straight to a lawsuit. But yes, there are definitely teeth to it if some company for whatever reason doesn't want to fix their infringement.
Honestly? I don't agree. Yeah, it's way too much. But on the other hand, whoever benefits from Hershey doing well, fuck 'em. Give the money to this random lady instead. If you can't see that's justice, I have nothing more to say to you about it.
Yeah, 100%. At this point the resources invested in MacOS / iOS have probably exceeded even the decades of work they were able to leverage by starting with FreeBSD / NeXT / Mach / whatever else.
(Edit: Actually, not 100% true. Macs are still very BSD-like under the hood; I actually really like development on Macs because I can basically treat them as BSD systems with unusual package management and a fancy GUI. For that reason they're far preferable for me over Windows or pre-OSX Macs. But yes, your point is well taken that iOS development at this point has far eclipsed anything they started out from in terms of LOC and time spent.)
There’s a list of open source Android distributions. Although not very good, they are viable.
Yeah, I get that. This is why I'm not fully in agreement with Perens that this is an urgent problem.
How are phones free-software-hostile?
Because the whole idea of the GPL was to usher in a future that was like the environment RMS grew up in, where you always had the source code to all your stuff and you could examine or modify or build on it. Linux machines are in actual practice that way, which is super cool. Android phones are basically not, from the viewpoint of almost any mortal human. I think the argument is that the efforts that the manufacturers make to close off modifications to the phones, and then put software on them that's sometimes hostile to the best interests of the phone owner, means they shouldn't be able to use all this GPL-licensed software for free in order to build the phones they're selling.
In what world is accurate product description enforced by law not a win for consumers?
This to me is a good question. The lack of something concrete that sounds like "yes, that would definitely work" is something that makes me have reservations about this whole thesis... but that said I think it has some merit.
Mysql and Qt already have a pretty solid model, where there's a GPL-enabled alternative that the community can use, or you can pay a fee to use the commercial version. You could scale that up to something where if you want to pay a certain fee, you can use lots of currently-GPL software (maybe any that's been assigned to the FSF or something with the FSF shepherding the whole thing). Then, we can stop the sort of benign neglect of companies that are sloppy with their licensing of uboot or Busybox, and just tell them to start paying the fee if they don't feel like dotting all their "i"s as far as licensing, and then use the fees to fund development of open source software that's needed but doesn't have a lot of motivated developers working on it.
I'm not as convinced that it's necessary as Perens is. Like I think he overblows by quite a lot the impact of RHEL skirting their licensing, because in his mind RHEL is such a big part of the computing world when in reality it's not. But it sounds like he's describing real problems and the solutions make some version of good sense to me.
Violating the (spirit of) the license (without violating the letter, because of loopholes in the license) is exactly what Perens is talking about.
He's not "complaining he isn't getting paid." I think it's pretty rare that the people working on open source software are actually hurting for money or anything. He's complaining that the actual practice of how the software is being used, RHEL and Android on phones and etc, isn't doing well at reflecting the vision of the computing world the GPL was supposed to create. Then, as one possible solution, he's proposing to kill two birds with one stone with a new license where the companies that are skirting the license right now can have to fund the development of particular types of open source software that need to get done anyway but is lacking right now (because of lack of profit motive).
You might or might not agree with his thesis; as much as I think it's interesting and insightful I have some reservations about it. I just thought you were misunderstanding his whole argument as being in terms of money, that's all.
Hm, interesting stuff. Yeah, maybe it's more common than I was aware of -- that's still a little weird to me, because there are entities like FSF that are so happy to go to bat for people legally if they do want to make it a legal issue.
Maybe it's made a little more complex because a lot of authors don't want to "punish" the company involved so much as they just want people to comply with the terms of the license, and a lot of companies aren't violating the license out of maliciousness but just from lack of knowledge or it just being more difficult than it sounds to keep your ducks in a row with source availability.
FWIW, I know Android phones generally have something buried in the settings where it explains what the licensing is for the code on the phone and with a theoretical offer for the source if you want it. That seems like what the Youtube talk is about; just creating the technical tools so that people can be in compliance without it being a pain in the butt that costs your engineers time and costs you money to do which companies are going to be tempted to avoid. But yeah, maybe people are getting sloppy about it in a way I wasn't aware of; that's sad to me if so.
The entire linked article is talking about "open source" in terms of the GPL specifically.
Busybox
Why not? Wanting accurate photos on my products, while outsourcing a big chunk of monitoring and enforcement to private individuals and providing them an incentive if they do a good job at it, is a bad thing now?
Punishing any company for bad behavior can, in some theoretical sense, get "passed on to consumers." I'm having trouble seeing how that makes it a bad thing. In practice, I think the cost is much more likely to get passed on to the shareholders, since Hershey's is already selling their little turd bars for whatever price maximizes their undeserved profits.
This is a very subtle but very powerful way of recasting what actually happened. I've dealt with this in conversations face-to-face with conservative people who've had interactions online, so I know how unfortunately powerful it is.
I'd be very surprised if any substantial number of the users on exploding-heads got "attacked" -- as in, had child porn posted to their servers by their ideological enemies, or got doxxed, or anything like that. What they got was disagreed with, or defended against.
If you frame being disagreed with as an "attack," then it means that anything that your enemy says that makes sense is a threat. You have to double down and find a way to "strike back." Or you have to withdraw from the conversation and talk about you're "always getting attacked." If your whole mental model is that way, then anyone at all who might understand the world a little better than you is all of a sudden your enemy, and worst of all, if what they're saying makes sense, then you must withdraw from the conversation, because now you're in danger of becoming an "enemy" to your ideological friends, if you start agreeing with that person. It's like in a big fistfight if you all of a sudden switch sides and start beating up your friends. Why would you do that?
And so, your viewpoint can never change, because that's "defeat." That's the insidiousness of this whole framing.
Furthermore, if you're brigading or trolling or being offensive, and someone blocks you or defederates from you, then you're being "attacked" or "silenced" or whatever. Any offensive behavior of your own is just good clean fun, even if you're trying to ruin some feminist critic's life or posting child porn. Any action that makes it difficult to do that is just evidence that the whole system is rigged against you, and a reason to start whining about unfairness.
I have a couple of conservative views, and I actually sorta sympathize with the idea that the lemmyverse is pretty one-sided in how it views certain issues. But going beyond that to say exploding-heads was "constantly facing attacks" is only true if you torture the language in a very specific, deliberate, and insidious way.
I've deliberately made a point to express some views here that I know are extremely unpopular (very sincere views of mine, but ones that I know will cause controversy). Not once was I censored or prevented from speaking. On reddit, yes; certain subreddits "on the left" will ban you if you say certain things, although it's still way more common from the right. Here, I've been downvoted all to hell, but Lemmy's actually configured in a way where (at this scale of userbase) that doesn't really make much difference to how many people can see your stuff. Not banned or had my stuff removed for ideological reasons even a single time.
Again, it's an insidious reframing of language. Your saying "could be free to talk about things" only makes sense if that really means "could be free from anyone else's ability to disagree." They're free to talk here, today, and they always were. What they want is to be able to freely talk and no one else disagree (or to be able to freely threaten or bully anyone who disagrees.) Quite frankly, what you're saying is bullshit. I've gone to conservative forums on reddit and asked, hey, can I talk to you about this topic we're in, without me being censored? They said sure, we welcome all points of view here, we don't do censorship. Guess what happened literal minutes later?
Trump does the same. He literally had all his social media accounts in place, and a podium in the White House where he could literally stand up and say literally anything he wanted into the camera and it'd be broadcast, and he was still whining about censorship. He didn't mean anything of his was being censored. He meant he was being "censored" from everyone being forced to broadcast his stuff without being allowed to disagree.