Cheap telescopes do this for me :) I usually get them whenever I move places, nothing fancy or special, just something to star into the void and be struck with wonder.
I hope this is sarcasm. Please do not do this. The world is crappy enough as is, no need for more spam and more privacy loss to keep an image site afloat.
When did I ever say that? Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote.
I was stating we have enough of it as is. No need to be snarky when you couldn’t be bothered to read. Of course it exists, what kind of troglodyte do you take me as, sir?!
IMO it is not OK because there are long lasting implications (some creepy dude comes to mind, but I digress) that could impact their lives well past childhood. And as a child they cannot properly consent, and I do not trust parents to look out for their kids best interests. It would seem history has supported this theory with lots of anecdotes haha. Again, just my 2c.
Great point, and ya that is a tough one. I will have to think on this but obviously the initial answer is no. I hate more regulation but I think protecting kids from enterprising parents is important.
I mean, RHEL clearly does not care about the GPL. Couldn’t the same argument be made then about RHEL and their attempts to undercut all the devs who put in free time to make Linux?
That quote, at no point, says they violated. Simply, that they don’t care. Which they do not. They care about money. It amazes me how many people want to split hairs for a billion dollar corporation. You can be compliant and still be morally bankrupt and not care about the GPL. Not mutually exclusive. And important note: “which guarantees that users are free to use, share, and modify the software without paying anyone for it.”
All that said, I will just admit that I am upset with RHEL and need to do some more research into the GPL.
Can you eloborate on the minimally vs fully. In my book you are either compliant or you are not. Or is this a case of spirit vs letter? If so, I would love to know the spirit part.
This is a case of 100% violating the spirit, and perhaps also violating the letter.
The GPL requires that the distributor place no restriction on redistribution of the sources or binaries by their clients. The subscription agreement, however, is terminated if you exercise this right, despite Red Hat not being allowed to restrict the exercise of this right. This is on the very edge of legality and may be found illegal - they're shifting the consequence somewhere else to say that it's not redistribution that's restricted, but that if you redistribute then they restrict everything else.
> The GPL requires that the distributor place no restriction on redistribution of the sources or binaries by their clients. ... The subscription agreement, however, is terminated if you exercise this right, despite Red Hat not being allowed to restrict the exercise of this right.
Again -- you've said this elsewhere -- which source and which binaries? RH places no restrictions on the redistribution of source or binaries received pursuant to Section 3 of the GPL. RH simply terminates the business relationship if you decide to build a 1:1 clone. What you're reading into the GPL is a duty not to terminate a business relationship, and to deliver new and distinct sources and binaries, after the business relationship is terminated.
> The subscription agreement, however, is terminated if you exercise this right, despite Red Hat not being allowed to restrict the exercise of this right.
This one. Though they can add any restrictions (like asking money for the sources, which GPL is fine with).
No, you cannot add any restriction to asking for sources nor to redistribution.
You can only ask in exchange for sources for the cost of physically distributing the source, nothing more, and in that case you must offer it to anyone asking at all, even if they do not have the binary. Otherwise, you have to distribute it for free on the same medium as the binary itself.
You can not either add any restriction to the act of distributing the program or it's sources. The GPLv2 says for example "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.". The question is whether or not terminating the subscription is a restriction, which it totally is to any reasonable reading by a layperson, and may be as well in front of a judge.
viscerally I would like to support what you say, but it makes little sense with a broader interpretation of "costs" .. IANAL but there might be some "reasonable" added there, and markets work with some bit of extra in places. It seems like a market negotiation is OK.
The value of the code has to exist in really different economies.. London to Algiers so to speak. So there has to be some room for different kinds of deals IMHO
And “mostly sponsored” is just another way of saying sponsored. Just because you sponsor something does not mean you own it. It does not really give you many rights as I understand. Because you are a sponsor, not an investor.
You make the argument for GCC but that is a piece of GNU which I feel furthers my point. Cool, RHEL put some money into an already free and open piece of software… that makes them exempt from violating the GPL?
Fair enough, IANAL so I guess I let emotion get the best of me. That said as of v3 of the GPL: “ You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License.”
I guess I am curious what the legal reasoning is behind them skirting it is.
A separate train of thought, but also, GCC was released 36 years ago. RHEL only 23. So GCC was fine without for 13 years. My bet is they would be fine without another 13, too.
- takes non commercial open source and does integration and sells support. Also contributes to a megaton of open source projects across all layers of Linux.
The other you have the rebuilds:
- take Red Hat's commercial but open source work
- does no integration work whatsoever, since RHEL's already done that
- trivial contributions to almost no open source projects that aren't only necessary for their position as a clone
- undercuts RHEL in support offering since they don't have to do practically anything themselves.
So yeah, RHEL is an excellent citizen of open source and the others are just parasitic freeloaders.
I used to build on centos to check my code would run on red hat. That doesn't seem particularly parasitic. Since they canned centos I no longer try to check whether anything will run on red hat.
I used to test on centos because red hat was _the_ enterprise Linux platform and I wanted my code to work there unmodified. It also helped avoid hardcoding assumptions from the Debian world.
I don't test on centos stream because I'm skeptical anyone deploys it to production and code working there wouldn't tell me much about working on RHEL. If my code crashes on their bleeding edge, do I try to fix it or wait to see if something under it is broken? Could waste a lot of time there for zero benefit.
I personally think this is the beginning of the end times for RHEL. It will not survive IBM.
As a developer, I never considered buying an enterprise license anyway. CentOS/RHEL with 10-years stability was kindof the canonical base for development of backend apps when you have better things to do than keeping dependencies up to date. Especially when RHEL themselves change things all the time in a zero-sum fashion without new capabilities (cough systemd cough). Now I don't care about RHEL at all indeed.
there are conflicting or at least mutually differing goals for an OS and the products. It seems from this desk that part of the extended systemd unrest is actually about spending resources for one set of aims, not another, when both are legitimate. It seems obvious the companies acquire tech with finance, and finance often cares about security and adding new locks, fences and cameras in the product fabric. systemd and the EFI boot seem to becoming more vehicles for new locks, fences and cameras than adding features to the product.
This always cracks me up. The best part is, the same people who locked you up a few decades ago for bud are the ones making bankroll now on the “green rush” in all the medical marijuana states. My local dispensaries are run in the same manner the Walmart is, industrially. A fun exercise in futility is looking at the parent companies and looking at which billionaire or consulting exec is selling you 400% marked up crap. My point being: all it took were some good ol’ corporate profits to change that tune.
While it has a long way to go I am very hopeful for the fediverse. Got the Memmy app via Test Flight and got signed up to lemmy.world in like 2 minutes. Was a lot simpler than I realized and honestly I am giddy with excitement. So long and thanks for all the memes.
Also, bravo to that dev. Seriously, v0.0.2 and you are killing it mate. You should be proud.
I'm astonished that the Memmy app is this good after just a week or two of development. Very curious how the dev will monetise eventually; as far as I know, they don't have significant overhead costs beyond an Apple developer account and their own dev work. Ought to end up somewhere like Apollo.
I am sure the militarization of police in the US has helped this a lot too. Honestly, aside from major metro areas (and even then) I see of no reason why cops need a Humvee with a mounted .50 cal turret.
My dad works in police training and talks a lot about how systemic the violence is within the culture of these departments (this observation was made by training all different departments at all different levels, over years).
And the best part is, they don’t want change and I suspect a lot of them actually enjoy this entrenched Us v. Them position. I probably would too if I had qualified immunity. And a Humvee.
The only cops I meet these days are in the jiu jitsu gym, and they are usually very nice people. It’s interesting to just be playing a sport with someone but also realizing they are actually seriously training for the danger of getting into a life or death struggle with a 260lb guy who has some grappling skills. I can’t imagine having a job like that. My biggest threat in life is a complicated Jira ticket.
High risk. Though if it works out for you it's a great upside. Though if you get beat your dieing moments may be seeing your Scrum master yell "Finish Him!" as your supporting developers scream for mercy.
A big problem is all the cops who are not in the jiu jitsu gym. They may well end up shooting that 260lb guy because they didn't have the grappling skills to deal with him.
Police don't get Humvees with 50 cal machine guns. They get them without guns. And they're useful for places that see inclement weather or floods or rural places with bad roads.
They weren’t very useful in either Parkland or Uvalde. I think at the point where you’ve got a fucked up person, determined to kill, with easy access to firearms and a culture where “a school shooting” is a regular thing, you’ve already lost. Giving the police more or less guns is sort of meaningless to this discussion, they’ve proven to be hopeless. You need to be tackling broader societal problems and looking closely at whether the second amendment’s “well-regulated militia” really means “anyone can have a gun”
To add to that, I would listen to what this ex-member of the SAS says on this very topic, and how difficult it is to actually undertake (and he was the guy who helped with the terrorist attack on a shopping mall in Nairobi, so he has some direct experience):
https://youtu.be/h3CNLY7fSzU?t=1797
I feel like many people would hear his words and not really process them. To you or I Craighead is saying something quite sensible - "you need to be ready and prepared to actually do this, and you probably aren't and won't be". But I've seen a lot of guys just parroting things like "be ready to use lethal force if you have to" to sound tough and as a sort of self-motivation, without really thinking about what they're saying.
I've no idea who is mentally prepared or adequately trained to pull out a gun and tackle a mass shooter, but I'd be very surprised if the overwhelming majority of gun enthusiasts didn't just do something like this in that situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saQ72NZtrS0
Yeah, and in total, he says it is about having all of (mentality * training * mental agility) to deal with such a situation. Given the low entrance requirements for joining a typical police force, I doubt many officers out there have all of those things in place, let alone civilians.
There are multiple documented instances of armed civilians stopping mass shooters. I think you’d be surprised indeed. See if you can find the footage from the West Freeway Church shooting in Texas a few years back—multiple members of the congregation were carrying and drew their weapons once the shooting started, but none of them reacted as you suggest.
The Uvalde cops were cowards who have no business serving in law enforcement. That’s the long and short of it.
You’re the one posting a video of someone acting like an idiot in a road rage incident and suggesting that’s what the typical gun owner does in a self defense situation. That’s simply not the case. Don’t turn this around and move the goalposts.
Dicken was a hero in that incident, but he was also an ordinary civilian exercising his right to carry a concealed weapon in public. Incidentally, the same YouTuber who interviewed that SAS man made a video about Dicken; he explains the point a lot better than I probably can: https://youtu.be/mA7Rb-EX4K4
And when it comes to cops, stop making excuses for the cowards in Uvalde. I am disappointed in them, and I have every right to be.
You use Uvalde as an example, where the police infamously did not do anything to save the kids and in fact prevented parents from saving their own kids.
Then again, if they did change that and use military-style regulations, complete with desertion and cowardice rules, maybe the equivalent of military police (police police?) can stamp out corruption and violence against the public, in the same way that a soldier stealing supplies or deliberately harming civilians would be (should be) punished harshly by a military court.
So as usual, more guns. Brilliant, decades of school shootings and your solution is to throw more guns at the problem.
Honestly if you like guns, you should really hope you don't get what you're asking for. Because once the inevitable happens and it becomes clear that more guns isn't helping there's only one direction that can go - gun control.
What I mean is that at a certain point they can't keep up the "if only X could have had a gun" line, because at that point they will have had a gun and the conclusion that guns aren't helping will be unavoidable.
If school shootings continue and there are no options, it's not "the left" you'll have to worry about. It's everyone.
You needn't wish me good luck. I live in a country where guns are already legal, available and even relatively widespread but controlled. We don't have these shootings.
edit: ahhh you came back and edited in a little Hunter Biden joke! I have some bad news for you, "the left" doesn't like Joe or Hunter Biden. They'll tolerate Joe as an alternative to a Trump or DeSantis, and they'll probably concede that Hunter is probably less irritating than the Trump boys. If you want to take a swing at a leftie you need to target someone they actually like - Bernie Sanders or someone like that. If Hunter Biden has broken some firearms law, throw the book at him.
I actually live in America. Never going to happen.
Edit: its not a joke, most mass shooters (they play games with that definition, if you look at just shootings where 2 or more are injured or killed) were already prohibited from owning firearms under the law. Yet the justice department seems to have little appetite to enforce those laws.
I am pretty sure the Supreme Court has held up that cops have no inherent need "to protect" citizens and you can't sue them for that. Qualified immunity covers this. Castle Rock v. Gonzalez. Essentially the only thing that gets them in trouble is flat out breaking the law. (Robbery, gross assault, laundering, etc)
Lol they will find some excuse like “the officers feared for their lives and acted in the best interests of the community” or something regardless of how many guns they have. Militarization of the police has nothing to do with it
Yeah the UK had a shooting in Dunblane that shocked the country. Then, like Australia, something happened and somehow we didn’t have any more school shootings.
If only we could pinpoint that something. Like if there was a lesson that could be learned from both of those cases, something the USA could take and apply to see a similar decline in such mass shootings …
You guys now have things like “mass stabbings” and truck attacks. I don’t know how the numbers were effected, but the underlying issues still seem to exist. After all, it is not the guns that convince people to commit mass murders.
Compared to mass shootings, mass stabbings are not as serious, really. You would need dozens of people to stand meekly and watch a stabber work down the line to get the same number hurt that a person with an automatic gun can kill in a few seconds.
I don’t think you want to do a US vs UK comparison on violent crime. Hell the American police alone committed more homicides than there were in the UK last year.
I know US is much worse in violent crime, but you can’t fix problems by addressing its symptoms while overlooking their main cause. If UK is still running campaigns like “safe a life, bin that knife”, then maybe targeting guns was not the correct solution to the problem.
Wow, no shit the gun ban reduced firearm crimes. By “layered approach” I suppose you mean this cycle: people commit crimes -> ban the most popular method -> crime displaces -> ban the most popular method. Continuously claim that you’re “doing something” by addressing symptoms and feel superior, while also completely ignoring root causes. Now that’s some McKinsey shit.
Forget guns, there are issues with poisons, explosives, driving cars, lasers, etc.
Limiting access to any of these to those with substance abuse issues, domestic violence isues, repeated criminal propensity; requiring training in the basics to handle and deal provably reduce incidents while continuing use by those with a need.
Do such things stop all incidents?
No. Nothing is perfect but by your 'logic' seatbelts should be discarded, closely packed houses should not adhere to fire safety protocols, etc.
Clearly something is working, they have a much lower homicide rate than the US. I'm against gun bans, but I'm not going to act like the homicide rates are similar, the US is a (relative to other western nations, if that's our cut off) a very violent country.
When I was younger and in college I remember Spez coming to my city to visit friends and gave a small talk, detailing how they got started. I was enraptured by Reddit, tech and coding at the time so I really looked up to him and what they were doing.
I am sorely disappointed in how things have turned out. Tech as we know it has become this sick, twisted battle for clicks and eye-balls and exits. Not to discount those that are doing great work, but where did all the integrity go?
Edit: remember when Google had the audacity to have the catchphrase “don’t be evil”? Bahahaha. Good stuff.
What makes these hacks think I wouldn’t just take my ball and go home? Not sure they care, but I am in a juicy demographic, so the joke’s on them. Social media has a short shelf-life, as long as I can remember. To pull a stunt like this, well, it is ballsy to say the least. Farewell, Tweeter, you will not be missed!
Happy to pay that price if I can have some gaurentees slaves and children did not assemble them. A new, maxed out, unlocked iPhone approaches $1500 pretty quickly. And I would be willing to guess some indentured “workers” put them together.
Sure but are you really pushing the performance of your phone? More power to you if so. I do game programming and rarely need to utilize super new features (unless AR related, but even then I could get by with a few gens back). For me personally peace of mind and not supporting slavery in worth the downgrade.
