Ephera

I still haven’t released anything which is not under the AGPLv3 license, which is even more aggressive than the GPL, primarily because I know that it’s prohibited to use AGPL-licensed software/libraries at Google.

I’m also hoping that because my stuff is on Codeberg, not GitHub, that its license hasn’t been laundered yet by some criminal AI company, but I don’t actually believe so. Certainly makes me more reluctant to publish my code.

In Okular (for desktop), you can set keyboard shortcuts for various color inversion/shifting modes. Or you can permanently set one in the Accessibility settings.

I am 100% on board with people doing with their body whatever they want. Restricting that is just ridiculous.
But that also necessarily means, they can decide to do immoral things with their body, which I do not need to be a fan of. And that’s where I’m still somewhat undecided on how to think of the whole sex work industry.

As you say, to some degree, it is simply mental care for those customers. I do think, the offering should exist.
But it’s also all too easy for it to become extremely exploitative.

I’m thinking, in some far-off, progressive future (not sure, if we get there before work stops really being a thing), there would be self-help groups or simply therapy offerings, for those who spend their life earnings on getting sex work done.

Wow, I’ve definitely seen that before, but I never realized how wild that is. So many companies will start drooling like a dumbass when anything contains the GPL.

So, it’s not like they can’t ever use GPL software, most do use Linux knowingly or unknowingly. But if you use GPL software in a way the legal department hasn’t seen before, they’ll always feel uneasy about it.

Frankly, I’m surprised that Java gained any traction in the corporate world at all, then.

You can write any conditions you want into a license.

That’s what actually differentiates proprietary licenses from open-source licenses.
Open-source licenses follow certain rules, and you usually select an existing license, so therefore they can be reasoned about, collectively. People often implicitly mean “OSI-approved license”, when they talk of “open-source licenses”.
Proprietary licenses, on the other hand, can contain whatever bullcrap you want.

Having said that, I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine, if you also called your license “GNU General Public License”, then a case could probably be made in court, that your license is deliberately confusing.

Hmm, do you mean in the web console?

I know Firefox has a bit of a reputation for being rather precise in how it handles web standards compliance. So, it’ll show comparatively many warnings and errors, if you don’t keep to the web standards.

This is actually quite useful for web devs, because it means, if Firefox is happy with your implementation, then it’s relatively likely to run correctly on all browsers.

Nothing matters, but neither does that fact.

Growing up in a population with lots of spirituality, it felt like a requirement to have some higher meaning to your life. And me deciding one-by-one that I didn’t believe in the spiritual stuff, it felt like I was missing that higher meaning.

What I didn’t realize for too long, is that if I don’t believe in the spiritual stuff, then I necessarily also don’t believe that the spiritual people have a higher meaning to their life. And that it’s not a requirement. A regular meaning or even no meaning is just as fine.

“Web3” is the crypto stuff. “Web 3.0” is federation.

Obviously, no one has a trademark on these names, anyone could make up a meaning, but yeah, these two definitions/names exist already.

I do that kind of thing, yes. Although I usually find it so distasteful, that I lose interest in watching other videos anyways.

But yeah, especially when it’s a channel making educational content, there’s a chance that some viewers take the sponsored section as general educational content (no matter, whether that’s because they’re gullible, young or did not pay attention when the sponsor segway happened).

There’s also various tech channels which recommend products that are objectively worse than the alternatives, or even exert malware-like behaviour. Those also immediately lose any and all respect from me.

Obviously, if it was a genuinely good product, it wouldn’t need the sponsorship deal for people to make videos about it. So, I do understand the struggle.
But everyone wanting to make a living off of media has that struggle. If I artificially inflate the view numbers of one media creator, the others receive less sponsorship money.

To my knowledge, it’s customary for artists to charge based on how much work is involved. So, they’ll calculate a wage for themselves and multiply it by the hours of work + material cost. Usually, that wage is relatively low, i.e. close to minimum wage, if your country has that.

So, you can try to roughly estimate based on that. You’ll probably forget some of the work needed to actually create it, but at the same time, artists are usually also quite quick at their craft.

However, you can also ask for a rough estimate upfront. It’s not going to be that artist’s first rodeo, they’ll probably have a pretty good guess, and they understand that people do care about the price.
And if something unforeseen happens, which means significantly more work is required to make your idea happen, then they’d hopefully also inform you about that and offer you cheaper alternatives.

Having said all that, if you are getting art made, then it is a good idea to have money to spare, even just for your personal finances.

Man, this is some confusing perspective material. I thought, the holes protruded outwards, like a halved bottle cork. I just didn’t get at all, how they could be at such weird angles…

Hmm, you know, I even looked that up before posting, so I wouldn’t be writing nonsense: https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/05/non-apocalypse-apis-copyright-fair-use/

But yeah, it would be weird for a court to make such a wide-reaching decision, if it doesn’t have to. So, that source probably oversimplified that it’s ‘merely’ an important precedent case…

Not really. It’s basically the same as Google vs SCO. There it was Java libraries instead of Win32, but the principle is the same.

To give a bit more context: The outcome of that lawsuit was that APIs are not copyrightable in the US.

That’s relevant here, because WINE does implement the Windows API. It would infringe Microsoft’s copyright, if the API itself was copyrightable.

Just ignore them?

I don’t disagree with your interpretation of “you’re welcome”. At the end of the day, it is still a phrase which sort of weakens a “thanks”, out of politeness.
I’m saying that there’s a difference between “you deserved that thing already” and “there was nothing I did, which anyone would need to be deservent of”.

And “de nada” is actually a bad example here. Yes, the dictionary will tell you that it’s a valid translation for “you’re welcome”, but the actual words translate verbatim to “of nothing”, as in “you’re thanking me for nothing”. So, “de nada” is very much like “no problem” in Spanish.

I mean, I’m fully on board with not getting hung up on what’s “correct”, but these are words that do have a specific meaning and I do find it interesting that the preferred choice of words shifts (even if it is only caused by relatively few people, that actually think about their word choice there).

Specifically, “no problem” is kind of like saying “there’s nothing to thank me for”. And ultimately, it kind of says “I don’t expect something in return”.

Whereas “you’re welcome” acknowledges that yes, I did help you, you are right to thank me for that, and also kind of “I would appreciate you returning the favor”.

My personal theory is that the change in language happens, because we have a lot more contacts with strangers, either in big/foreign cities or online.
When you help a stranger, you know upfront that they won’t be able to return the favor, simply because you won’t stay in contact. So, not only should it definitely not be a personal sacrifice for you to help them, it also feels right to communicate that they don’t owe you anything, so that they can go on in their life.

It’s often intentional to obstruct vision, since it’s the only real way of making drivers actually slow down. Even someone willing to run a stop sign isn’t willing to drive at speed into an intersection they can’t fully see.

That doesn’t really require placing the line further back, but it may have been part of the motivation, along with what the others said.

I don’t know, if this is worth arguing over. Depending on how far advanced you expect such a life form to be, obviously they might be capable of things that we currently consider impossible. But well, to illustrate what I mean:

• The next galaxy is the Andromeda galaxy. It is 2.5 million light years away. There could be life over there right now, but we wouldn’t know, until about 2.5 million years from now.
  Compare that to the emergence of modern humans, which was 300,000 years ago. We didn’t start sending out radio waves until some generations ago.
  None of this means that it’s not possible for life to have existed on some planet 2.5 million years ago, so we’d be seeing their radio waves right now, but even then, we might interpret them as background noise.

• The next star is Proxima Centauri. It is 4.24 light years away. So, we could see things from there in 4.24 years, which is pretty good, although still absolute hell of a delay for exchanging messages.
  But for them to actually visit us, even if they go at 1% the speed of light, that would mean they’d need 424 years of travel time. With little sunlight or other energy sources on the way.
  And 1% of the speed of light is an insane 10,800,000 km/h. Compare that to the fastest man-made object, the Parker Solar Probe, which is expected to go 720,000 km/h, when it closely passes by the Sun.

Basically, we can be extremely generous with these examples and still see practically insurmountable time frames.

Worm holes could theoretically exist. Maybe a sufficiently advanced race could defy physics as we know it. But if they can’t, that’s a pretty good explanation why they’re hiding.

I assume other life exists somewhere, because the universe is practically infinite in size, but I also assume that we will not meet them, because the universe is practically infinite in size.

Philosophy needs to be logical, in my opinion. Otherwise, you’re just making up bullshit with no connection to reality.

Which, yeah, not wanting to have any axioms, does lead to that. It’s just reasoning around in a circle, but there’s no logical path to get into that circle.

Adam and Eve were canonically cast from heaven for being able to define good and evil.

I mean, sure, but then we just need to give a slightly different wonk to our circular argument:

As a maximally good being, only you know what's good, so defining what's good is in itself a good deed.

But yeah, obviously this is just nonsense. I just find it hilarious, how much argumentation you can layer on top of itself, without actually providing a logical statement.