Split versions is usually the first step. Many projects have done so before. Next year there will be some technical reason they can’t keep feature parity with the commercial repository, and it will drift from the OSS repository. Oops, we broke compatibility, sowwy guys. A couple of years later the OSS repository will be closed because it is a security risk. By that point the company and management would’ve drifted so far from the initial values of the project that people won’t notice. Those who cared will have jumped ship to alternatives sooner, those who noticed later will be already too deep into depending on the software that they will keep paying the subscription.

I have no evidence, but I also don’t have any doubts this is the plan.

It currently doesn’t work with Vaultwarden. The Linux client doesn’t accept custom certificates. And the Android client is paid. It is a dead-end for self-hosting.

The license is also stupidly a single sentence. Which means that use could be nuked at any minute, and any money you use to pay the developer means nothing. If they wanted to kill the project today and nuke the repo, you have no legal rights, the project dies and fuck you and your passwords. That doesn’t exactly inspires confidence.

Exactly. People always have a bias or interest. Even if, globally speaking, I or you care for the humanity of all people and the victims of all conflicts. Time, space and resources in general are limited. So our bias, attention span, education, etc. Create a background filter for what we dedicate our time and attention.

This is why the “of course” clause in leftist rethoric always have to apply. Free Palestine, of course has to necessarily mean a care for all human suffering across the globe. It is implied by default. It is just this three seconds are dedicated to this issue in particular.

When people have objections they usually include them. Like terfs who can’t shut up about how much they hate trans people even when, on the surface, they seem to be using feminist rethoric. Antisemitic assholes will always include a qualifier to insult Jewish people. And even reject other areas of pro-palestinian discourse. Because they want to focus on the hate, the positive message is being coopted. Just like feminist messages are coopted to hate on trans women. It becomes obvious that the point is to promote hate, not to support people being oppressed.

They’ll let you know. My dog has moods, each has their own body language. Sometimes she wants head and ear scritches, so she’ll bump her head into my hands and keep them there until I start petting. Sometimes she wants belly rubs, she will roll on her back in front of me or on the couch/bed. If I ignore her, she will switch positions into my line of sight and repeat. She also sometimes is not in the mood for petting, and my approaches will be dismissed. She turns her back and ignores me. She learned to signal her walking leash all proper and formal on her own when she wants to go for a walk. She sits in front of the leash pointing with her snout and waits until I notice. She will bark if I’m not around to call my attention.

Sometimes I stop on purpose to see her reaction. If she’s okay with stopping the activity she will leave or regain a neutral posture. If she wants more she will tap me with her paw until I resume. It’s very cute. Dogs are definitely very communicative if they want something.

The company developing audacity have done similar surveys for other software. No matter the result, they always add some version of it. I love the main UX designer’s philosophy, he hasto done miracles with other stale products. But the company is squarely pro-AI oriented.

Lots of questions posted here are not genuine questions. Instead they are socio political comments trying to manufacture gotcha replies for controversy.

Those are not stupid questions, they’re rethorical questions. They are not what the community is for.

“No stupid questions” means that genuine good faith seek of knowledge or dispelling basic ignorance will not be shamed. Political rethorics will be shamed though. Thoroughly downvoted and mocked.

It has nothing to do with advertising. The phrase refers to bias and stereotyping. It is not about the book, it is about the person doing unfair judgment based on superficiality instead of knowledge.

There are no covers that are not carefully chosen for the book they accompany. The source of error lies on the beholder making false assumptions about what the book is, then passing judgment on said book they haven’t read based on limited information and most likely incorrect assumptions.

The phrase calls people to check themselves and their own biases before making decisions with limited information. Or at least to search for some more data with curiosity instead of bias.

I use it too, but there’s always something that rubs me the wrong way about the developer. Every reply I’ve read from them is either sarcasm, snark or rude dismissal.

The best interview ever.

There’s a whole futures market for this and many other prime matter. Companies, including retailers, buy stocks ahead of time. That’s the original meaning of a stock. The company then fulfills orders as the stocks become due or they get renegotiated for a later date. This is a crucial source of financing for these industries. As they get the cash influx by selling promises of future productivity.

I skim them all. The options I wrote are soft parodies of what each said. There’s a ton of problems with this model of governance, but I’m no voting member, so my opinion has no impact.

That said, it makes it so a single posture has to be voted on in its entirety, which is dumb (as some legislative bodies of the world have proven). As a result, nuance is erased alongside with any sense of ideological vision or compromise, and instead it promotes vagueness in every action and glacial institutions that break slowly break apart.

The very person who wrote the proposal that won reacted to winning with:

I regret the loss of contributors (which would have happened with either option winnign [sic]). It is just too early to take a final decision on the mater [sic]. Let’s revisit this in two years or so, and let this mess of a GR be a warning for our future selves.

The proposal was designed to win time without having to take any real stance while taking the smallest loss of contributors in the process. And thus it was written as the most milketoast nothing burger. When an infinite set of possibilities exists that actually do address real concerns like climate impact, social impacts, copyright and legal problems related to generated code, etc. in relation to the principles and overall values of the project. Instead, they are deferring the practicalities to pull request’s bickering.

But again, I’m not a voting member or contributor. So my opinion is null. I still think the way the process is designed and conducted is stupid and prone to cause the eventual failure of debian via governance collapse.

Gee, I don’t know. Let’s see if that has been said anywhere, shall we?

Sponsorships tell a similar story: men typically get $50,000 annually, while women make about $15,000.

Where does the money come from?

Organisations like FIVB have standardised payouts at major tournaments, but league salaries and endorsement deals remain uneven. Differences will persist until sponsors and broadcasters invest equally.

Why would that this sponsor and broadcaster pay differently?

One of the most significant problems female athletes face has nothing to do with the sport itself. It’s how they’re shown in the media. Far too often, the focus is on their appearance rather than on what they can do. In volleyball, that means more talk about kit choices or body image than actual skill or game stats. It’s frustrating when talent gets pushed aside for appearance.

Would you look at that statement? Maybe there are things beyond the surface level that influence people’s decision making at a structural level?

Over the years, coverage has been overly sexualised, which hasn’t helped. That said, social media has started to shift things.

What Women’s Volleyball Tells Us About Equality in Sport

But what the hell do I know. I’m just a sociologist during his coffee break pondering about how invisible things like social constructs alter individual beliefs and decision making. I’ll go back to work, bye.

The Debian vote was so stupid:

Option A: Psychotic breakdown
Option B: Ethical impracticality
Option C: Political extremism
Option D: Two contradictory things at once
Option E: Something that doesn't prevent the other options but packaged with something nasty and unpalatable
Option F: Sensible but ultimately vague and action-less common place neutrality.
Option G: Nuclear option
Option H: Do nothing

It was such a brain dead exercise in futility. It was designed for the winner from the start.

Nussbaun’s comment on the result is hilariously dull:

On a very personal note, I regret that the winning option does not acknowledge all the legitimate concerns around AI: environmental impact, copyright and licensing uncertainty, the health of Free Software communities, and the strain of aggressive scraping on the open web.

The GR results give us raw numbers about our opinion, and a direction, but we have a lot of work ahead of us to act as a community and understand how we can continue to accommodate the very large minority that would have preferred to ban or discourage AI.

Lucas

¹ obligatory disclosure: the script used is AI-generated

Yeah, the option that doesn’t say anything won. Who knew?…wait yes, mathematicians, they knew. The most important part of a survey is choosing the options carefully.

Great, none of the articles mention the issue of sponsorship or the gender aspect of bias in sports regulations.

By the way, it’s not cool to link without reading the articles.

Last month, bikini-wearing athletes again made headlines when the European Handball Federation fined Noway’s beach handball team for wearing shorts rather than the required two-piece bathing suits.

There are still problems with the lack of choice, why?

Ultimately, the 2016 FIVB uniform guide actually offers more options for women than it does for men […] who are stuck with a tank top and shorts as their only style choice.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to try to understand why this is this way?

“There are also certain times of the month that wearing a bikini isn’t always such a comfortable option, especially when you’re on TV.”

Interesting testimony. Should we actually ask a follow up question to the person who said this to hear her opinion about why being on TV is a factor…Nope, too late, narrative is done, article is over.

Like, seriously, I’m not talking about infantilizing women or restraining options. Quite the opposite. I’m talking about turning your damn brain on and actually look at the world with curiosity beyond the common places of thought terminating memes, cliches and manufactured narratives. It’s not hard as long as you are focused on actually having healthy discussions instead of being obsessed with being right on the internet (the worst kind of right).

Yes, they are adults. Stop talking about them like they don’t exist, or like they are a single homogeneous lump of objects.

It is entirely possible to discuss sociological concepts and political issues without insulting or infantilizing the people who are involved. Screaming “infantilizing” like a parrot is not an argument.

Which begs the question. If the most efficient equipment to use is a full suit (remembering here the snark skin controversy), why are men not allowed to wear it, but women are.

It is absolutely arbitrary and based on historical gender biases. But that is too complex for some idiots to digest.

No, why would you do that? It is extremely rude to comment on a person’s body unprompted. They get to choose whatever they want to wear. That doesn’t erase the reality of social pressures or its relevance when discussing genre politics.

This absolutely ignores sponsorship pressures. Men get millions of dollars playing in full clothes. Women have to wear bikinis just to ensure a few thousand dollars “because it sells more tickets”. Choice or not, there are structural cultural norms that nullify the offer of alternatives. Misogyny doesn’t disappear just because you can choose different clothes.

Honest talk. There’s actually a mini crisis in birding and animal photography because of the use of AI. Images generated or altered with AI without disclosure are being published as facts in scientific journals and misleading research efforts on the health of animal populations which are vital to guide conservation efforts. Many biologists and scientists depend on the photographs of amateur or professional wildlife photographers. AI is inducing error and noise in the information they get to work with.

Almost there but not quite. I’m not a lawyer, but have friends who are. The two examples are actually equivalent. Because, by principle, laws evaluate actions. Not consequences or intentions, those can be qualifiers in criminal cases, or discussed in civil cases. But in general the law prefers to deal with things that happened, not risk or what could happen. As it is far less ambiguous to argue that someone did something, than arguing whether or not something could’ve happened.

That’s why pre-crime was such a big deal in the sci-fi movie Minority Report. Similar to thought crime, it is a tough ethical and legal discussion without a clear possible answer that doesn’t lead to violent authoritarianism.

“I was speeding but nothing bad happened” is equivalent “I was shooting in his general direction not at him, I missed every time”. That’s still attempted murder and the former is still speeding. The crime is the action, not the result.