The argument is that Y and Z are similar enough to extend Y => X to Z => X. This might be valid if Y and Z are indeed the same in all aspects that matter, if not then I'd say it's a False equivalence.
It is not known whether Z is actually Y or not, but it's assumed to be true to extend Y => X to Z => X. In that case it should be Appeal to probably.
Hmm no, I think it works correclty. I get log entries like Import List Sync Completed. Items found: 61, Artists added: 0, Albums added: 0, which suggests to me that it processes more than just one result entry.
We really must have read two different posts and sets of comments. All they did was to ask for a foss license that makes for-profit endeavors give back some of the money they earn by using foss projects, just like they have to give back code under most foss licenses. There is nothing bad about that general idea imo, we've hopefully all heard about the problems os projects have to sustain themselves, even when they are being used by commercially successful businesses.
They were then told by some levelheaded people that this doesn't really work with foss alone, and so accepted that the best course of action would be to dual-license their work going forward.
Everything else (including what you just wrote) is heavy projection and very toxic behavior by some people imo. Reading things between the lines that absolutely aren't there, accusing the OP of nefarious motives without any valid justification, claiming that there is only one correct way to do foss or be against "the community", and so on. That's cult and herd behavior, it has no place in foss imo, and that's pretty much exactly what the OP said when they called some of the more toxic responses childish.
I would encourage you again to realize that there is more than one valid way to think about foss, and that people who don't 100% agree with your way still aren't bad people!
The person asked a legitimate question and was being made fun of by some people, and downvoted to oblivion for completely legitimate viewpoints imo (wanting to make companies give back to foss). A mod should absolutely be allowed to call out childish behavior and herd mentality when they see it, they aren't supposed to be mindless drones after all! If anything they showed remarkable restraint when faced with some really nasty comments, mostly just stating/defending their opinion and trying to end toxic conversations.
Please just chill out, and accept that some people have different but equally valid opinions, even mods.
I'll repeat what I said the last time this was posted: NO f*cking way the Fedora guy got past the partition configuration step without pulling at least a few hairs out! I love Fedora, but that UI is just cursed!
If you say it's taking something away from the original owner then you're right, but if you say it's not paying your share of the costs of a good you're using then you're wrong. E.g. if you go to a concert and don't pay the entrance fee then the concert will probably still happen, but you're not reimbursing the artists and crew for their costs and effort.
A contract just codifies an existing power dynamic, because its terms depend on the negociating powers of the people agreeing to it. It doesn't say anything about the morality of the terms or the context in which it was signed. Very extreme and on-the-nose example: "We have agreed to only allow white people, you have breached that contract ...". This works just fine if your moral system is based on contracts, but it's obvously immoral. There's also the conundrum of people never explicitly agreeing to the social contract they are born into, and even if they did, it's not like they have much of a choice.
Imo pure tolerance is a real paradox, because you cannot tolerate intolerance, and that makes you intolerant yourself. You can't achieve it, but you probably should not want to in the first place. There are certain things we will and certain things we won't tolerate in a modern society, and that is completely fine. The important thing is that we recognize this and make good decisions about which is which.
It doesn't though. Pure unlimited tolerance would include tolerating someone's breach of contract, logically speaking. Also, this is a dangerous road to go down, because you can rephrase pretty much anything as a contract and justify your actions or beliefs with people breaking it.
They don't have to make extra apps, just remove restrictions that make some functionality exclusive to iPhones or Apple Watches. So iPhones get the same access to Apple Watches as other phones, and Apple Watches get the same access to iPhones as other watches.
I'm not saying these rules are perfect, but it doesn't help if you argue against rules that don't exist.
Commercial transactions are not "all" tx, and above 3000โฌ are obviously not the most common tx.
I do think the crypto restriction with no lower limit is too much, and I don't get why they focus on custodial wallets, but it's again not "all" tx.
Why does the government ...
Money laundering, tax evasion and corruption are real crimes with real consequences, and knowing about the flow of money is pretty much required to be able to detect them. It's a trade-off with privacy, so imo setting some limit for anonymous payments is the right thing to do. Idk if 3000โฌ is perfect, but it does seem reasonable.
Police have more surveillance and crime-detecting tools ...
We need some amount of oversight and surveillance, so imo it's not good enough to just exaggerate every proposal to the extreme and reject it on those grounds. These rules are not a total crackdown on anonymous payments, but they might still be too restrictive. But you kill every discussion about that if you just make up different rules entirely, instead of arguing about the rules that were actually adopted.
shrugal @ shrugal @lemm.ee Posts 2Comments 525Joined 2 yr. ago
I use Synology C2 backup for my NAS, but they also have very affordable options for PC backups and object storage.