It’s CIA002 red scare campaign

Rent in the city is double rural rent. We need regular public transit. Trolly even.

I knew a guy who actually did this. He was a senator’s son, btw.

It’s extremely funny.

And if they cared about kids, they’d do something about school shootings, like go after parents.

Thank you, no, it’s the same.

I don’t, I’m sorry. It was several months ago, iirc.

@dessalines@lemmy.ml @jwr1@kbin.earth

I’m subscribed to the communities.

Didn’t that happen after people started pointing out their evil?

It’s all about market capture, then anything they want.

The real fight is on multiple fronts.

Sorry I deleted my post because I was mistaken. I haven’t tried it.

deleted by creator

Desktop: librewolf. I’ve not found anything remotely comparable for Android.

That’s part of what I picked as a teaser:

Start with what the GPL actually prohibits. It does not prohibit keeping source code private. It imposes no constraint on privately modifying GPL software and using it yourself. The GPL’s conditions are triggered only by distribution. If you distribute modified code, or offer it as a networked service, you must make the source available under the same terms. This is not a restriction on sharing. It is a condition placed on sharing: if you share, you must share in kind. The requirement that improvements be returned to the commons is not a mechanism that suppresses sharing. It is a mechanism that makes sharing recursive and self-reinforcing. The claim that imposing contribution obligations on users of a commons undermines sharing culture does not hold together logically. The contrast with the MIT license clarifies the point. Under MIT, anyone may take code, improve it, and close it off into a proprietary product. You can receive from the commons without giving back. If Ronacher calls this structure “more share-friendly,” he is using a concept of sharing with a specific directionality built in: sharing flows toward whoever has more capital and more engineers to take advantage of it. The historical record bears this out. In the 1990s, companies routinely absorbed GPL code into proprietary products—not because they had chosen permissive licenses, but because copyleft enforcement was slack. The strengthening of copyleft mechanisms closed that gap. For individual developers and small projects without the resources to compete on anything but reciprocity, copyleft was what made the exchange approximately fair. The creator of Flask knows this distinction. If he elides it anyway, the argument is not naïve—it is convenient.

Also probably because they mostly only protect certain income brackets and payors.

I don’t see where you get “blame.” This is solid, practical advice.

Maybe be more careful irl and online. And if you have some “truth” you’re intent on sharing, understand you need to be as intent on accepting unpleasant consequences, including unaliving, or being able to afford necessary security detail and apparatus.

Zillow does it all the time, even when properties aren’t marketed. Also, Streisand effect.