UBI doesn’t give any power to those who own the means of automation, nor does it take power away from laborers. Automation does that. Automation reduces the leverage of the laborer by reducing the capitalist’s reliance on labor.
We have the same leverage regardless of whether we have UBI or not, but the leverage of employers is reduced with UBI. That said, if more people opt not to work thanks to UBI, then the people who choose to work will see their leverage increased.
theoretically they can
Is this a purely theoretical capability or is there actually evidence they have this capability?
it’s already been proven that they can tap into anyone’s phone
Listening into a conversation that you’re intentionally relaying across public infrastructure and gaining access to the phone itself are two very different things.
The use of proprietary software in literally everything
the amount of exploits the NSA has on hand
How many zero-day exploits does the NSA have? How many can be deployed remotely and without a nontrivial action by a user?
what’s stopping the NSA from spying this much?
Scale, capacity, cost, number of employees
—-
I’m not saying we shouldn’t oppose government surveillance. We absolutely should. But like another commenter pointed out, I’m much more concerned with the amount of data that corporations collect and have.
I recommend Tidal over Spotify, personally
If you’re in the US, unpaid overtime is only permissible if you’re salaried exempt. To be salaried exempt:
Check out https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17a-overtime for more details on the above.
It’s quite possible you’re eligible for back-paid overtime.
Note also that the minimum exempt wages are increasing in July.
Re your “cover my expenses just to exist” bit and the follow-up about employers catching on and pushing abusive shit… if this is related to a disability make sure to look into getting that on record and seeking an accommodation. If your primary job duty is X and they’re pushing you to do Y, but your disability makes Y infeasible, then it’s a pretty reasonable accommodation to ask to not have to do Y (assuming your HCP agrees, of course).
If you use that docker compose file, I recommend you comment out the build section and uncomment the image section in the lemmy service.
I also recommend you use a reverse proxy and Docker networks rather than exposing the postgres instance on port 5433, but if you aren’t familiar with Docker networks you can leave it as is for now. If you’re running locally and don’t open that port in your router’s firewall, it’s a non-issue unless there’s an attacker on your LAN, but given that you’re not gaining anything from exposing it (unless you need to connect to the DB directly regularly - as a one off you could temporarily add the port mapping), it doesn’t make sense to increase your attack surface for no benefit.
I haven’t personally used any of these, but looking them over, Tipi looks the most encouraging to me, followed by Yunohost, based largely on the variety of apps available but also because it looks like Tipi lets you customize the configuration much more. Freedom Box doesn’t seem to list the apps in their catalog at all and their site seems basically useless, so I ruled it out on that basis alone.
I am trying to avoid having to having an open port 22
If you’re working locally you don’t need an open port.
If you’re on a different machine but on the same network, you don’t need to expose port 22 via your router’s firewall. If you use key-based auth and disable password-based auth then this is even safer.
If you want access remotely, then you still don’t have to expose port 22 as long as you have a vpn set up.
That said, you don’t need to use a terminal to manage your docker containers. I use Portainer to manage all but my core containers - Traefik, Authelia, and Portainer itself - which are all part of a single docker compose file. Portainer stacks accept docker compose files so adding and configuring applications is straightforward.
I’ve configured around 50 apps on my server using Docker Compose with Portainer but have only needed to modify the Dockerfile itself once, and that was because I was trying to do something that the original maintainer didn’t support.
Now, if you’re satisfied with what’s available and with how much you can configure it without using Docker, then it’s fine to avoid it. I’m just trying to say that it’s pretty straightforward if you focus on just understanding the important parts, mainly:
If you decide to go that route, I recommend TechnoTim’s tutorials on Youtube. I personally found them helpful, at least.
There are multiple takes on this, ranging from “tea bagging is fine” to “tea bagging is sexual assault” - see https://gamerant.com/teabagging-sexual-assault-controversy-explained/ for a rundown. I fail to see how allowing people to opt out of it would destroy any form of culture.
TBH I think seeing it as not at all rude makes you the exception. It’s clearly intended to be rude, to put your opponent on tilt, and most gamers get that.
I’m not addressing anything Gitea has specifically done here (I’m not informed enough on the topic to have an educated opinion yet), but just this specific part of your comment:
And they also demand a CLA from contributors now, which is directly against the idea of FOSS.
Proprietary software is antithetical to FOSS, but CLAs themselves are not, and were endorsed by RMS as far back as 2002:
In contrast, I think it is acceptable to … release under the GPL, but sell alternative licenses permitting proprietary extensions to their code. My understanding is that all the code they release is available as free software, which means they do not develop any proprietary softwre; that’s why their practice is acceptable. The FSF will never do that–we believe our terms should be the same for everyone, and we want to use the GPL to give others an incentive to develop additional free software. But what they do is much better than developing proprietary software.
If contributors allow an entity to relicense their contributions, that enables the entity to write proprietary software that includes those contributions. One way to ensure they have that freedom is to require contributors to sign a CLA that allows relicensing, so clearly CLAs can enable behavior antithetical to FOSS… but they can also enable FOSS development by generating another revenue stream. And many CLAs don’t allow relicensing (e.g., Apache’s).
Many FOSS companies require contributors to sign CLAs. For example, the FSF has required them since 2005 at least, and its CLA allows relicensing. They explain why, but that explanation doesn’t touch on why license reassignment is necessary.
Even if a repo requires contributors sign a CLA, nobody’s four freedoms are violated, and nobody who modifies such software is forced to sign a CLA when they share their changes with the community - they can share their changes on their own repo, or submit them to a fork that doesn’t require a CLA, or only share the code with users who purchase the software from them. All they have to do is adhere to the license that the project was under.
The big issue with CLAs is that they’re asymmetrical (as opposed to DCOs, which serve a similar purpose). That’s understandably controversial, but it’s not inherently a FOSS issue.
Some of the same arguments against the SSPL (which is not considered FOSS because it is so copyleft that it’s impractical) being considered FOSS could be similarly made in favor of CLAs. Not in favor of signing them as a developer, mind you, but in favor of considering projects that use them to be aligned FOSS principles.
If OP was calling home as a teen then 45 or under is more likely, since calls on most US payphones cost a dime up until the mid-80s, when they started costing a quarter.
The only shootings where mental illness plays a major factor are suicides. When it comes to gun violence, only 4-5% of perpetrators have a severe mental illness. When it comes to school mass shootings specifically [ source ]:
And with regard to school shootings generally:
If we could reduce bullying and do a better job at making students feel like they have value and matter, that would go a lot further toward reducing school shootings than anything involving mental illness (aside from, perhaps, efforts to reduce the stigma associated with it).
Substance abuse - drugs, particularly those that are illegal, and alcohol - as well as poverty and inequality is much more strongly linked to gun violence.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t continue improving our available mental health resources (the majority of deaths from guns are by suicide, after all), but we shouldn’t use mental illness as a scapegoat.
Would it change your assessment if they have dynamic price tags that you can only see with the aid of some network-connected augmented reality solution or an online catalog (that you access with a QR code you scan, geotagged software, or something along those lines)?
Inb4 a Supreme Court ruling including “MLMs are like hard-core pornography - ‘I know it when I see it.’”
Thanks for clarifying. Phrased / thought of as “a situation wherein X happens is immoral,” it makes sense.
My confusion came from not doing that, even after reading the “Remember:” text in the comment, thanks to my conflating my personal belief that the individuals who are part of corporations that purchase houses in mass and rent them out are behaving immorally (vs being actors in an immoral situation) being adjacent with a statement about an individual renting out a room.
That concept of morality feels more similar to what I think of as “fairness” (though not an exact match) than to individual morality.
I feel like there must be a different word used to convey the moral judgment of someone who isn’t doing the best they can within the framework - i.e., someone who is choosing to exploit laborers for profit in excess of anything they could use for themselves.
Oh! So your statement was basically “a situation where someone has to rent a room from someone, even if that person is just renting a room out of their family house, is immoral?” That clears things up - thanks for explaining.
Right…
What’s the moral alternative for an individual without the power to make that change, who you said would be behaving immorally if they rented out a room from their family home?
What’s the moral alternative?
You are not creating Value by allowing someone to use a room for a fee.
You created value when you made the room suitable for someone else’s use rather than your own. The room was not available and now it is. Value is an output, and the room didn’t intrinsically have value.
This is just using the already created Value to rent-seek.
Your understanding of rent-seeking is not one I’ve seen literally anywhere else. What’s the basis for that?
Using a room to rent out becomes Private Property, not Personal Property.
How so?
That wasn’t something an LLM came up with, though. That was done by a system that uses an LLM. My guess is the system retrieves a small set of results and then just uses the LLM to phrase a response to the user’s query by referencing the links in question.
It’d be like saying to someone “rephrase the relevant parts of this document to answer the user’s question” but the only relevant part is a joke. There’s not much else you can do there.