tpush

8 ms·

61.
by tpush 3y ago
If it is very evident, what's an example of Wikipedia's supposed bias?
62.
Read This, Not That: The Hidden Cost of Nutrition Misinformation(asteriskmag.com)
4 points by tpush 3y ago|0 comments
63.
by tpush 3y ago
That's fine, people can still load your program onto it themselves.
64.
by tpush 3y ago
Yes there is, because the for-profit organisation making you sign a CLA for your contributions is effectively using your free labor to suppress wages of its employees. Doing free work for an employer is always parasitic with regards to its
65.
by tpush 3y ago
That is by definition not compensation. I have to say I'm disappointed seeing you defend exploitative labor practices.
66.
by tpush 3y ago
That copyright of the Linux kernel is being shared by all is contributors is essential in making it an actual public good. I have no idea what you want to express with your second paragraph, though.
67.
by tpush 3y ago
But the fortune 500 company can offer more for its CEO. It just has to pay its janitor more. Which it totally can, being a fortune 500 company.
68.
by tpush 3y ago
Yes, lots of organizations want free labor. That has no bearing on whether its ethical. There's a somewhat decent argument to be made for non-profit organizations, but there's none for for-profit orgs like Microsoft.
69.
by tpush 3y ago
Microsoft requires contributors to sign a CLA giving Microsoft effective ownership over your contributions. You should never be working for a for-profit organization without compensation.
70.
by tpush 3y ago
It's a loss for both parties, no?
71.
by tpush 3y ago
No, this is not true at all.
72.
by tpush 3y ago
Quite literally non of what you say is true. The state of HN on nutrition discourse is completely screwed.
73.
by tpush 3y ago
You're being downvoted and the replies to are condescending, but you are actually completely correct and the replies exhibit misinformed groupthink. Goes to show how powerful narratives being pushed YouTube personalities et al can be.
74.
by tpush 3y ago
6g per 100g is totally fine.
75.
by tpush 3y ago
No, that doesn't work. You can't retroactively change a license like that. What could happen is that future versions get licensed differently (if either all contributors agree, the project used a CLA or is permissively license
76.
The Mirror (Possible Future of the GObject Type System)(bassi.io)
2 points by tpush 3y ago|1 comments
77.
by tpush 3y ago
Why shouldn't you be using port 25? You need that if you want to receive email on your own mail server.
78.
by tpush 3y ago
> I've yet to see an Apple user who doesn't install brew as a first step before doing anything with their computer. Most Apple users don't even know what brew is, and I'd be willing to bet that most devs using Macs do
79.
by tpush 3y ago
That's on Apple for not supporting WebM in Safari.
80.
by tpush 3y ago
Off topic: Mother Theresa wasn't a particularly great person.
81.
by tpush 3y ago
macOS and its derivatives are not a BSD.
82.
by tpush 3y ago
What choices are backwards?
83.
by tpush 3y ago
No, data collection ought to always be based on informed consent. A default enabled checkbox that can easily be skipped over does not constitute informed consent. I agree that opt-in telemetry however is useless. Thus, the only ethical and
84.
by tpush 3y ago
Opt-out telemetry is indeed awful, no matter how righteous one feels in the cause to get it.
85.
by tpush 3y ago
Twitter is not a Nazi hellscape.
86.
by tpush 3y ago
The spirit of the GPL is the user being able to exercise the four freedoms, not more nor less. Red Hat's EULA allows that; your version doesn't.
87.
by tpush 3y ago
I'm not nitpicking, what I've said is the difference between GPL compliance and not. This next version of yours is different to Red Hat's EULA in the same way.
88.
by tpush 3y ago
Your version rescinds freedom 4 upon using an updated version. Red Hat's EULA doesn't do that.
89.
by tpush 3y ago
No, I didn't. I'm not sure where you get that from? Anyway, Red Hat's EULA doesn't restrict freedom 4. You asserted an alternative formulation where it does infringe to be equivalent. I reject that equivalence assertio
90.
by tpush 3y ago
No, I'm saying your formulation doesn't match Red Hat's EULA.

More ›