A cogent argument. I’m convinced!

You specifically said you chose the MIT license because you wanted to use it in commercial projects. That’s business, no matter how small. As the owner of the property, you could have used any and all licenses available to you. Also, if you wanted to require users of your code to attribute or notify you, you could have. If you want to be disappointed in their behavior that’s perfectly fine, too. Corporations usually disappoint if you have any altruistic expectations of them.

Here’s the core issue. The developer didn’t know his rights, and made a mistake. I’m not criticizing, people make a career dealing with crap like this. But if you want to make a business out of something, it’s worth it to do some research or talk to a lawyer. I believe the MIT license has its place but, from what the OP said, this isn’t it.

I’m perfectly aware of how it works. My whole comment was a proposed way to manage it that doesn’t assume that everyone who uses outlook wants to use MS’s cloud service just because they also happen to use Outlook. I’m not sure how you missed that.

As for emphasis, “Press fucking backspace!” has a whole lot of it. I certainly would consider that, and not your hypothetical, as actively aggressive.

If you wish to talk about critical thinking, look at your own statements with respect to mine. Not once did I say cancel thenlink attachment, but this thing I didn’t say sure got you upset. Moreover, I wasn’t writing a formal specification. I’m sorry your assuming the worst and least likely meaning of what I thought was a pretty simple statement triggered you so badly.

Yeah, it sure does sound like it would be hard to have a notification if the attachment is going to fail due to size policies, and then have an option to use the link or cancel the attachment (and have you choose another way). It would also be unheard of for there to be a setting in that dialog to say to always do whatever action you take so it only inconveniences those who go with the default once.

User-hostile software is never a “you” problem. This applies to a number of FOSS products, as well.

People have been sending NSFW pictures one way or another probably since people started making pictures. We have images scratched into the walls in Pompeii. There are certainly issues of consent, abuse, and advertising that need to be addressed, but demonizing pictures of naked people is also a problem.

As for all those alternatives you mention, the vast majority of fediverse applications/instances seem to be "like [insert commercial entity], but hosted by individuals/the community? How many people would be on Lemmy if Reddit was offering them what they wanted? When you have control or alternatives the odds of finding what you like improve. And some of those things people will want to share will be images, videos, and yes, even porn. But even without porn, if the service isn’t meeting people’s needs, which I agree includes no or fewer ads, then it simply won’t survive.

Something tells me there would be agreements between the instance provider and a media hosting provider and as such the media hosting provider would probably have some disclaimers about what they’re willing to host (war porn, regular porn, what have you). The two host providers would have to make sure everything they want to provide and everything they don’t want to host agree. I mean, there’s already lemmynsfw, so free porn hosting is already happening.

I honestly think the whole media hosting aspect of federation is dangerously flawed as long as instance hosts are still paying for storage and bandwidth, and I’m not sure how to fix it. It will cripple small instances with popular media if they host directly, but not hosting directly has a possibly lesser impact on all instance providers, with a higher aggregate impact. Tough choice. I don’t know enough about CDNs to say if that can solve the problem, depending on how media is federated.

This is going to need to be resolved if federation is going to grow to the next level. I hope someone finds an answer that works well enough for everybody, even the porn users and providers.

The guy just invents particles and you think we should trust him?

j/k

I was surprised to find oracle’s offerings so economical for personal use. I set up a foundry server (TTRPG) and so far it hasn’t cost me a cent. Still not a fan of them or their CEO, but this is working for me.

Yeah, it was fun reading about that war/liquor bootlegging enterprise.

This is like comparing requiring students in schools to wash their hands to genocide. The scale is the same but the impact is vastly different, and if you don’t want to wash hands (or be defederated) you can just move. Except for changing activitypub instances is even easier than changing schools and both are easier than leaving Palestine.

There are a few words that are their own antonyms. You would think any at all would be too many…

One thing that I’ve realized about this generation of kids and people who didn’t grow up on tech but were forcibly introduced to it(millennials, gen x, boomers) is that they don’t want the game to be challenging or to reward skill.

As a gen X who has been gaming for all my living memory, electronic gaming since I was 5, and gaming on computers since i was 10, I don’t think you have any clear idea what those generations are like. Certainly, there are groups that vastly prefer games of chance to games of skill, whether they be electronic or not, but I’ve seen those in every generation, just like I’ve seen the opposite.

First, my right and my ability to exercise it are two different things. My being too poor also doesn’t impinge on my right to own a gun, but it certainly affects my ability to do so. Moreover, you are focusing on the example and not the law itself. I can as easily exercise my right to bear arms by finding a big stick or a suitable rock. Further, exercising my right doesn’t require the government to restrict it in order for it to exist. And, of course, violation of my rights would generally require the government to be involved.

As far as speech is concerned, yes, I’m exercising my right to free speech if I say anything in a public space, including asking you if you’ve seen my lost cat. It likely wasn’t going to be infringed in that particular example. This still doesn’t allow me to go on private property and ask people about my cat.

Rights don’t have to be at threat to be rights. A right is “something that one may properly claim as due.” Note that there is nothing there which requires it to be threatened.

One of the definition of exercise is “the active use or application of something.” How is carrying a weapon not an application of second amendment rights? How is putting posters in a public space not an application of first amendment rights?

This is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

So you’re proposing that bearing arms, the right guaranteed by the second amendment is not exercising of said right unless the government tries to stop you? So rights are like Schrodinger’s laws, where they only exist when we try to violate them?

If I have a gun but the government doesn’t care, am I not exercising my 2a rights?

The government can’t restrict your right to free speech until you exercise it. They didn’t, which is why this isn’t a 1a case, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t exercising their rights.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World

I think they have this joke in Big Hero 6. 4 days, forwards, backwards, and inside out for two more!