this comment feels very reminiscent of the recent “if it was opt in nobody would opt in”

Why?

Marketing being stupid again. But it’s just an artisan keycap, they usually do cozt around this price, I find them neat 😅

I tried Linux multiple times (out of curiosity / contrarianism I guess) until Windows pissed me off enough, while the Steam Deck proved I could reliably run games with minimal tinkering (frankly not any worse than what I had to do on windows).

So I made the jump, and I have not looked back

My issue isn’t with Rust as a language at all, I quite enjoy making my projects with it. My issue is with “Rust rewrites” of GPL software, only to have those rewrites be licensed under MIT/Apache. To me it signifies that these rewrites were never about the safety features of Rust, but that they are attempts at pushing out the GPL

Rust often ends up just being an excuse to rewrite software with corporate-friendly licenses without copyleft. That’s not necessarily true though, Lemmy itself is Rust & licenced under AGPL

I love rust, but I absolutely hate how it’s used to jam MIT licenses where GPL belongs. Maybe it’s time we consider using corpos tools against them, and use an AI to rewrite GNU utils to Rust, so that people can continue contributing to Rust while not feeding corps?

Edit: Though licensing AI software is iffy at best, you’ve got to own the copyright to something to licence it: Non-human productions are legally non-copyrightable. Also it might be better to just have humans do it anyway. The intent of my message was just that maybe we ought to deprive MIT-licensed projects from FOSS-motivated developers by providing Rust GPL alternatives to MIT/corporate Rust projects

deleted by creator

But why would they care about supply chain attacks if they already have hacked into the package you’re requesting? In that case, executing python scripts would be less noticeable

This would be simple. This would also not address the fundamental issue which is identification of bots vs. humans which are quietly destroying the online advertising industry (which, yeah, good riddance), which is what motivated Meta to lobby for online age verification to begin with. So it would fulfil the official purpose of age verification, but not it’s real purpose

afaik it’s straight up the opposite for the california law. I didn’t read it myself, but from what I read online about it, they require a boolean “adult/minor” and forbid any other data collection related to age

I’ve heard of and professionally used salesforce, and never heard of SFDC

I don’t see how not, but I’m not a lawyer. From my perspective only Waterfox’s edits would actually be GPL anyway, since they don’t own copyright to Mozilla. If they wanted to integrate their work upstream that would be an issue

He’s definitely a nerd. He’s a very competent guy, no random wannabe would be able to make what he did with bcacheFS (and apparently extremely boastful about it?), he’s just very weird. Also he’s an open source dev, I doubt he’s trying to gain money from all this. Again, just a weird guy imo

Okay, having followed the bcacheFS drama I did suspect I’d hear from that guy again but now that’s unexpected

What sucks about Anubis?

Yes, it rewrote history, and thanks to Git’s robustness it was extremely easy to notice and identify. Forced rewrites are not an issue if you trust people on your repo, and if you don’t (and honestly you shouldn’t, everyone fucks up), you can disable force rewrites in the remote

Well yeah but shift insert is annoying as hell since the keys are so far apart

Bethesda Games Studios does, thankfully they didn’t make the remaster so 🤷

That’s not really up to them being nice though. If you sell something of value X for a margin of 10%, and the price increases to 1.5X, then the margins must apply to 1.5X.

It’s compounding for each element of the chain, so a 10% tariff would very much increase the price way beyond 10%, without anyone needing to be greedy about it.

Then, if you take greed into account… good luck