sophrosyne42

Freedom of religion is deeply intwined in the US's legal and political system, to the point where superficial pronouncements made by certain parties are not effective in changing that fact

Software has always been maleable. To think otherwise is a plain delusion. Go ahead and write a few bytes into a binary, or download some updates, and you'll see what I mean.

The issue here is the legal barriers which set up a delusion of nonmaleability. Copyright and IP treat software and ideas as if they were fixed, unmaleable things; they are not.

You mean the ones that have been doing so for many administrations across both parties?

The writer of this website and people like them should be removed from having any amount of power and relevance in software development. That is, if you want to do software work instead of bikeshedding with bad faith struggle sessions.

Probably not, since our intellect can produce lossless compression too

The only reference to specific information about these weapons described that they were intended to target Hamas. The title amd rest of the content is quite misleading.

Ah yes, the big tech propaganda that undermines their entire business model. Without copyright, you would be free to modify or alter any data collection capabilities of tech you purchase.

Copyright does no such thing. The copyright owner is free to alter or change their material at any time, or to discard it and force it to remain unused until it deteriorates and is destroyed (e.g. video game preservation is mostly done by copyright violators).

>Why you want to reduce value of creative work, but not a value of other assets?

The framing isn't charitable. People want to weaken copyright because it is a government granted monopoly. There are negative economic effects (i.e., for everyone) to government granted monopolies. Other assets generally aren't government granted monopolies.

No, they are not. That wont stop an enlightened anarchist or antifascist from insisting that they are, and lying about this to as a pretext for their violence.

They would. But second order effects ensure that this very act leads to the decline of housing prices. These effects being eliminated by rent control makes it the premier anti-tenant policy.

Antifascism and anticapitalism are necessarily violent. You can't resist nazis without punching them back. You can't stop capitalism without expropriating the expropriators.

You must be fun at parties

The popular conception may or may not be correct. The social function of democracy, on the other hand, was described by Hume as allowing for a peaceful rather than a violent means for the transfer of power. To the extent that the socialist variety of election denialism undermines the possibility of such peaceful transition of power, which it does and is its intention, it is of the same ilk as the Trumpist variety of election denialism.

> I’ll just add that both parties serve capital.

Conspiracy theories are just as batshit whether they're socialist or fascist. The only difference between yours and the nazi type is that the nazis added the adjective "jewish" to their description of "capital"... but I guess these days the left is doing that too!

Election denialiam can and should mean more than just the current thing. If you want to use a proprietary definition, then so can I.

It is not less dangerous because you include Marxist delusions like "capital" in your description, as if "capital" is an autonomous entity with a will and interests of its own. In fact, it takes money to run a campaign, and that money comes from a large variety of interests and sources, all of which are competing and not by any means unitary, anf among which include very not "capital"-like things such as workers unions, individual donations, groups set up by citizens, etc.

You don't get a pass because you think your election denialism sounds sophisticated and progressive by inserting Marxist terms into the picture.

>Election denialism is about rejecting official election results.

That would be the implication of such statements as "our democracy has been subverted by the big corporate conspiracy".

Yes it is. If you insist that the result of a democratic election does not reflect the will of the people, that, and nothing else, is election denialism.

There is no functional difference between the statement "democracy is subverted by a grand corporate conspiracy" and "our elections are invalid", because the only way the former happens is if the latter happens. If the latter didn't happen, then you're just upset about the outcome of a legitimate election. Which is a fair thing to be in a democracy, but it does not mean that the whole system is corrupt. Insistence that any other outcome than your preferred outcome is illegitimate is dictator behavior

I would support that, and there are states that have already switched to different systems in their local or other elections

Just because its a Marxist trope doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory

This is a well known mathematical property of first-past-the-post election systems, as opposed to evidence of your grand conspiracy theory

It really takes a lot of magical thinking to believe we can just implement UBI without any costs.

Notice that when you open your mouth, there is no roast chicken that flies in.

Given how the opening was calling twitter a nazi app, there should be no surprise that the discourse is this unproductive and shitty

A lot of plugin systems are like that. (See the hyprland, noctalia, or vim/neovim's plugin systems).

More generally, how else would a small project allow plugins that isn't "here is a way to add code" and then anyone can release the code they added? Hell, the linux ecosystem in general is a "free for all", and that is the nature of the platform

Then you should be able to say where the political statement in omarchy resides, and what it is

This would be interdependence expanding. Manufacturing isn't the only kind of economic activity

The definition issue cuts both ways. It is just as much an issue for those insisting that LLMs are intelligent/conscious in some way.

When the build system expects a certain metadata which is removed by the force pushes or tag removal, then that is arguably not the preferred form. Grapheneos notes this elsewhere in the thread. [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49368983

You take it for granted that everyone agrees with you that what you regard as addictive or radical should be restricted by the government. These are not facts-of-the-matter, but opinions, and opinions for which there is disagreement, and for which people deserve the opportunity to decide for themselves and make a decision. You want to make that decision for them. You are a disguised dictator and fascist. Simple-as.