I think it doesn’t support USB yet.

I can’t talk to if it’s stable. It seems the question before that is does it support my needs/devices.

Screw AI RAMpocalypse, I’m buying an open source firmware motherboard.

More like Digital Restrictions Management, amirite?

Blender moment

Did Maya do a Unity or it it even still a thing? (Or something else that’s also proprietary 🤢)

If one insists on only using open source software then bad changes can be removed by another dev.

If you could have nothing but pure intentions… that’s still a bad way to go about getting users to update. Users choose to not update to avoid getting fucked by Microslop.

We need to be the one in control of our computing for it to be ‘our’ computer, instead of Microsoft’s. That requires being able to change what it does via the source code, and sharing those changes with others. Windows is proprietary, no source code and it’s illegal to share it - it can never be ‘your’ computer like that.

Why did the hotel need over 360 accounts?

One does not “simply” avoid taking a political position - the silence is deafening.

“Could be used to (…) facilitate unlawful assemblies during internet shutdowns”

internet shutdowns

“Are we the baddies?”

Would you want the phone back after it’s been in their hands? I wouldn’t trust them to leave it alone.

The alternative being… not paying and still getting it, Nintendo??

Or would you rather no one buy or play games from you? I stopped a long time ago.

This FAQ section affirms you can modify it but cannot call it GPL. Is there a distintion between modifying the GPL and including an extra term?

As I recall you can ignore and remove terms that contradict the freedoms granted by the GPL. We can’t infridge trademark but we may be able to redistribute this without including that clause (if it violates the GPL).

Sometimes people say X has bern open sourced but you check the license and it ain’t. Here it’s “GPLv3-or-later (🤓) + additional clause (🤔)”. Section 7 had me worried but at first read it seems like trademarks and logos are included which thry don’t want you to use as if you’re Bohemia. I guess someone else could fork and remove all that.

Thanks

Whose TV is it?

LG’s or the resident?

People can take “your” non-copyrighted code and ignore any copyright license you could try, and fail, to enforce in court.

"Torvalds is known for vocally disagreeing with other developers on the Linux kernel mailing list. Calling himself a “really unpleasant person”, he explained, “I’d like to be a nice person and curse less and encourage people to grow rather than telling them they are idiots. I’m sorry—I tried, it’s just not in me.” - Wikipedia

How can one trust the data from the car without an audit into the software/hardware running at the time?

It makes no sense to say to someone what they “should do” without the part where it’s helpful to them flourishing or avoiding missery (i.e. morality). This can be expanded to include others in purely selfish terms.

There are no moral issues to AI if we ignore all negative ways it’s creation (and use) affects people. Typical AI-creator take advantage of others’ works on-mass while we’ve punished normal people harshly for far less infringement/social violations.

If the purpose of copyright is about encouraging human creativity then the AI generated elements which are clearly seperatable from human input should not be copyrightable? There can be creativity in writing promps but the resulting code output is not itself creative?