What makes you think that?

Fair. The rest of the site is a lot more normal. More being a relative term, of course.

Good news.

And hundreds of thousands of years of evolution pre-training the base model that their experience was layered on top of.

Any reasons why you can’t recommend it?

Interesting, because I saw a 20 point increase between vanilla Firefox and Mercury when testing last night.

That’s not a bad idea. Surely it could be automated within the image. If my ADHD allows me I might take a look at it later. :D

Looking at the installation instructions, it requires you to run database migrations manually with every image docker image update. Does this mean that running watchtower is going to bork this thing?

What’s wrong with that?

I don’t think you’ve properly thought through the consequences of not considering IP rights for projects with a significant number of contributors. There are absolutely situations in which having a single IP holder is advantageous to having multiple IP holders. Large open source projects might find governance hard when they’re hamstrung by getting consensus from hundreds or thousands of contributors.

And yes, I did read the title and the post. I understood it.

Copyright and license agreements are not at all the same thing. And just because something is “open source” doesn’t mean that it is free of copyright.

If my understanding of the GPL is correct, you can definitely build it yourself and publish it on fdroid. Can’t use the same name or any trademarks noti has, though.

It wouldn’t be FOSS because a landing page with nothing but content isn’t software. I’m referring to the site at blender.org vs the source code for an application at a git repository.

I would suggest actually naming the license under which it is released if you’re talking about the website that is generated by your software. If you’re talking about the content of a website describing your project, like a landing page or something like that, I’d either attribute copyright to who wrote the content, or release it under a Creative Commons license such as CC-BY-NC.

It’s always a matter of degrees. The bigger the injustice, the more violence is justified to rectify it. It is in the disproportionality, in my view, where the problem arises.

Never forget that humans are just barely evolved apes. Sometimes a swift knock to the head is required to activate those neural pathways to discourage anti-social behavior. Not always, but also not never. Claiming otherwise is just self-aggrandizing moralization that people use to make themselves sound and feel superior.

This has amused me. Thank you for the amusement.

The software landscape for XMPP isn’t the best. I twisted the arms of my immediate family and have them using XMPP messaging with a Snikket server I set up, and we’ve had lots of issues between OMEMO support and the lack of good messaging clients for iOS. It works, but it isn’t the smooth-out-of-the-box experience that non-techies want/need.

Not providing builds seems to be a good incentive. I’ve seen some projects that charge for the installation/compiled software with the source freely available. Lots of software is a gigantic pain in the ass to build without the proper configuration and pipeline set up.

I think we just have to accept that marketing has to dumb down and generalize for the mass market.

So they’re using our data and also getting paid for it

Yeah? Isn’t that the point of paying for a music service? I pay, they give me access to music and curate it in a way that would be enjoyable to me. How could they do that without some information about me? This is a prime example of what a company should use your data for.

This logic is really sending me, man.