Really? So like a system of if-can-pay-do-pay wouldn't be an example of reasonable cost offsetting, exactly like we do with being able to afford counsel?
Surely you're not saying that we can't levy fines instead of prison time for crimes. Are all fines therefore unjust because some people can't pay them?
See, I agree about prison debt traps to an extent, but I feel like this topic always goes off the rails from "debt trap bad" to "prison is the only punishment for crimes, fines are unjust because poverty."
One might argue that your debt to society is ALL of the legal consequences of your crime including not just imprisonment time but also fees, fines, etc. In these discussions it often seems like people have the feeling that the prison time is the sole punishment for the crime when in fact that's not the case. Your debt to society is the entirety of the consequences.
That being said, I've read some of the details of the particular fees/fines/etc and they are often times a wholly unjust prison trap that is difficult to escape. Laws that allow that sort of thing should be changed to provide reasonable cost offsetting onto people who commit criminal acts without creating nightmarish situations that people can't rationally be expected to deal with.
I have accepted your terms and I am using your software in a manner that is compliant with your terms. Yet you are trying to burden me with some extra ethereal terms that you're coming up with after the fact and justifying through weird collectivist statements like "the greater good."
Use an open source license that contains ALL of the terms you want involved. You don't get to back out of the open source deal or heap guilt on others because you have regrets about other people literally complying with your terms.
> In other words, I'm not aware of a permissive license that's the same as BSD/Apache with the only difference in that also says "use it as you wish but you must mention my name when you're a commercial enterprise making a splashy product announcement".
That's called the old BSD 4 clause license. Now you know.
I don't understand why people get upset about this. It's called open source for a reason. If you want recognition when someone uses your open source project, pick a license that has an advertising clause.
This is similar to other open source projects which GPL their project instead of AGPL, and then get angry when people and companies (like Amazon), literally abide by the terms of your license but you don't like the outcome. Then they act all offended like someone did something wrong. If you don't like it, switch your project to AGPL and stop trying to act like someone did anything but honor the license you released your code under.
People like this do damage to open source because they blindly pick their licenses rather than understanding what they mean.
And of course I mean this is totally untrue. I have no anonymous Twitter account and I follow the group think at every turn. I apologize for joking that I don’t follow the group think at any time. I will of course honor the group think at all times. Please forgive me for this bad joke.
I am a huge supporter of organizing and in general POWER TO THE PEOPLE. I believe that with my heart and soul. But the idea that you should be able to force the company to let you use company resources and systems that they pay for, for this purpose seems truly stupid to me.
Can you explain when the introduction of beer suddenly caused the crash in male fertility? As opposed to it being related to the huge push towards xenoestrogens? It’s cute to find a masculine form of victim blaming but there is literally zero evidence to back this up. You might as well blame ownership of pickup trucks for male fertility crashing. This is terribly hollow and baseless.
Oh noes, what if advertisers chose to spend money on the most demographically effective groups and not in a way that reflected our social justice agenda?! That would be almost like self determination on their part rather than bowing to what we consider appropriate. Cant have that.
Please give more information as to why factory foods created with vegetables aren’t similar between margins, trans fats, and other vegetable based foods and literally killed millions of people... but this time the vegetable based replacements are different...
The number of people willing to insist that phytoestrogens and other xenoestrogens aren’t related to why male fertility rates are quite really crashing is truly sad. You aren’t interested in an open discussion of the issues. You just want to shut down any perspective that implicates your chosen lifestyle as to why processed foods, plastics, and phytoestrogens and
other xenoestrogens are causing these issues. Yet like some of the impacts of the obesity crisis you blame “beer” as if people are suddenly doing this to themselves. This is massive blame shifting. Ask people why they are exercising enough to blame them for McDonalds while you’re at it.
And how are males not getting massively fat due to processed foods and the significant pressure of soybean oil and products based on soybean oil and other processed foods rich in xenoestrogens from factory foods? Yet you’re pointing to “beer” as if it some key ingredient. Does the introduction of beer somehow correlate with the collapse of male fertility rates? Or does the introduction of vegetable based factory foods correlate with the crash of male fertility?
It makes me sad that we were about the evidence before but seeding the desired answers now.
Except maybe by word of mouth spread the existence of external forums for communication that don’t involve leveraging company paid resources and some kind of entitlement to use said resources for non-company purposes. Using external resources and word of mouth may not be the most convenient result but it’s realistically fair.
How is this not exactly like margarine or trans fats from vegetable oils? Let's take something natural and replace it with something made in a factory through all kinds of industrial food processes, but since it's made out of vegetables it must be okay! Remember when we were all in consensus on eliminating processed foods? But now that we're replacing meat, processed foods are A-okay.
Also, male fertility rates are crashing, but it's definitely not related to ever increasing intake of phytoestrogens...
I should have been clear, I was referring to OP’s statements which were easily refuted by the Whois search. I thought that was relevant to tying this situation to some HN perceived history of this behavior.
Right, but they’re angry because Rogan occasionally brings right wing people on his show and lets them speak. Can you imagine? Allowing opposing perspectives to speak...
Yeah, I’m not right wing either, I just actually believe in free speech for everyone. Even people I don’t agree with. This new movement to censor and silence opposing perspectives is disgusting and should frighten people. Win with the merits of your ideas and perspectives, not by silencing the people who oppose you by claiming moral superiority.
It seems like you’re painting with a broad brush. Does the company literally allow those resources to be used for personal use without restriction? Or are there in fact terms of use associated with those resources? Can you use them to advertise for your personal business? Can you post a singles ad? Or are there terms of use that specify what kind of communication is acceptable and maybe terms that allow the company to monitor the communications over that medium? Without knowing the actual terms of the use of those resources and just saying “well, personal use” you’re just speaking in very broad terms.
I think you’re wrong and exposing some weird form of entitlement to resources that don’t belong to you. Of course you can talk to people and organize. None of that grants you the right to use their systems, equipment, or resources to pursue those activities. Company email isn’t “talking” to people, you do that with your mouth. Company email is an IT system the company implements for whatever company business and communication they chose to allow. You are not entitled to use the company’s systems in any way they don’t allow, and they have every right to monitor communications on those systems.
How is this not more left wing technologists trying to use their technology roles to de-platform right wing perspectives they don’t agree with? Literally threatening to quit if they can’t impose editorial content policing on the other side. And you wonder why politicians are about to yank the Section 230 rug out from under these technology companies? Don’t cry when your federally granted indemnity disappears my friends.
I'm confused as to why anyone would presume to be able to use company equipment, resources, email, etc for these types of activities. Obviously you have a right to organize, but I don't see how they have to let you use their systems to do so, and anything you send on company email they can and should be able to view. I've seen this sort of thing with the Google protests and whatnot too. The forums, message boards, and email accounts you are using belong to the company. Use external resources if you're going to do such things.
Zomg I love standards when they don’t benefit the implementation I prefer, but fuck standards when they benefit the implementation I prefer. Great way to encourage companies in the future to contribute to standards you dumb short sighted hypocrites.