You were around for the last seven months or so, right?

What we’re seeing now is not business as usual.

Xellennial here. Please overlook us. Being “the middle child of history” (remember that quote?) does us just fine.

Nothing to see here. Go bother gen Z.

That’s not wrong, but it’s also reductive and borderline misleading.

To be fair, this is mostly self inflicted. Nobody forced them to strip the NIH, NASA, etc.

Jesus fucking Christ on a bicycle.

The terfs will not be missed.

“Domestic violence reporting at an all time high”

Hashtag fuck cars

I’m not from anywhere you’d recognize. English is my third language. Don’t assume.

Also, we make our own culture here.

Yes, but this suit about a different matter (access to source code) which is a user right in the license. It’s the whole point of the GPL. In this suit the users (ie. The buyers of the devices that have received the binary distribution) obviously have standing.

The problem with relicensing is that the “authors” of a creative work (remember, this is copyright law) are changing the terms of the distribution, and the authors are allowed to do that. The issue at hand is whether the person doing the changing of the terms is allowed to make this change on behalf of “the authors”.

The users may be impacted by this decision, but they are not a part of the decision making process. Hence, no standing.

What you need in a relicensing is someone that asserts (co-) authorship of the work. That’s a much taller order.

That’s true, but only contributors have standing to do something about it. Unless there are contributors with contributions that are not easily patched out that are willing to make a case out of it, we’re stuck with the last GPL version.

I’m sure you can dedogwhistle the post without me holding your hand.

I hope they cut up their feet real bad.

Emperor Hadrian would take the whole court with him as he undertook his frequent travels, essentially a traveling imperial capital. The senators sat in Rome, essentially powerless, and steamed in anger.

You can commit money to a payment channel with a third party to create a private ledger so the third party can perform payments in your name to someone in using their shared channel on their private ledger.

Motherfucker, that’s just a bank and two bank accounts with extra steps.

And twenty bucks to the Chinese miners as a “transaction free”.

Lightning network, taproot, all that shit, just paper over the fact that Bitcoin cannot, by design, handle enough transaction volume to become a general purpose currency without reinventing a lot of mostly centralized payment infrastructure.

I am strict about meaning BECAUSE it’s important to face the reality of our oppression. I’m baffled I need to explain this to fucking anarchists.

Maybe you shouldn’t provably tie your identity to a privacy phone?

I assure you the interaction was very mid for me too, madam.

Of course we can change Monday. It’s a social construct. We made it. We can unmake it. We can make it into something else. That’s the point. It’s also real.

Just like a house is real after we’re done building it.

We’ve built a machine that produces famine. It does not have to exist. But it does. The machine is real. If we want to get rid of it we have to actually tear it down. Again, like a house.

The operative word in social construct is not social. It’s construct.