Pup Biru

being unwilling to change behaviour in the face of evidence that people don’t like what you’re doing isn’t something to brag about

judging by how the votes seem to be panning out, people seem to think that you’re the one displaying toxic behaviour, and are kinda in favour of OP calling out and defending against genuine misinformation

+1 for the A1 with AMS lite

i’ve had 4 other filament printers (and a MSLA) and the A1 is the first one that i actually use regularly because it’s just so easy

it also allows them to push web standards in whatever direction they feel like

pushing web standards in their user-hostile favour

this is not the bluesky you’re looking for

https://blueskyproject.io/

Bluesky enables experimental science at the lab-bench or facility scale.

Bluesky is a collection of Python libraries that are co-developed but independently useful and may be adopted a la carte.

a drill is the most useful power tool that people tend to own… most of the time you could get away with just a screw driver and a self tapping screw, but we don’t because a power drill is a convenience object

i think we all tend to agree that we should be less wasteful, but a power drill is a shit example of that, and will only push people to write off the idea

rather than “we should all borrow a power drill rather than owning”, it should be something more like “yknow that 1 time you needed a nail gun? wouldn’t it be nice if you could just borrow it” (for me that item was a circular saw, and i use it maybe once every 5 years - i’d love to put it into a tool library or similar if i could borrow other things from time to time)

yeah i’m not sure about the scale issues. i’m a software engineer, so use it in teams of ~6-10 (more in the building, but not as close as classrooms) where everyone gets a macbook and iphone

it works close to perfectly in those situations

i’m not sure of the issues that you’re having, but it almost always works perfectly for me - screen mirroring, media control (streaming from device as well as remote control of existing media - even streamed from 1 device to eg a homepod and then using another device to skip etc), airdrop files and photos etc to my own device or others’ devices, even the new ability to walk away and have the transfer continue over the internet

can’t remember the last time i had an issue that wasn’t solved immediately by a retry, and even those issues are very rare

… in my experience at least

require a centralized control over how much people are allowed to raise prices to match inflation for games.

and? governments already track inflation. in australia, our minimum wage and unemployment benefit amount and a lot of other things are legally defined relative to CPI (the “cost of a basket of groceries”)… rental increases are capped at “reasonable” amounts given the increase of other properties in the area… these are not only doable, but already being done in different contexts

And, as mentioned many times already, it doesn’t work with microtransactions or free to play games

that’s true, but this is why we say “reasonably available” as the core metric rather than specifics: we define what IS reasonable, and then let the courts decide outside of that list

incentivizes setting a very high launch price to work around the limitation of using launch pricing as a benchmark for a product’s entire lifetime.

which is why i didn’t say launch price - i suggested something along the lines of an average… the cost of the game should be something like the median price that people paid. what most people are willing to pay is “reasonable”

People ARE arguing that something being up for sale should be the trigger instead

think you’re misunderstand - it’s not “for sale”, it’s “reasonably available” to an average targeted person

I think this is a very, very hard problem to fix, but if you made me try, I’d argue that a deep reform should enable copyright exceptions regardless of whether something is up for sale. I don’t even know why people here are so fixated with that element. The exclusive right should not be about copying a thing, it should be about selling or profiting from a thing. Not copyright, but sale right.

sale is irrelevant to the issue though - the issue that we’re trying to solve is general availability to the majority of people the product was designed for. if you are the copyright holder, and you make your work available for consumption then nobody should be allowed to distribute your work without permission (for some reasonable time)… if you decide to stop distributing a work, there’s no public good that comes from that, and thus it should have no copyright protections because copyright protection is meant to increase the volume of creative works

yeah the concept is great, but open sourcing often takes a lot of work

Why do you say that?

because i’ve been involved in open sourcing products and libraries on many occasions

closed source code often relies on proprietary libraries etc

I don’t see how that matters. If you write code that depends on something and opensource it, your product might not be buildable/compilable/usable without it, but your code is still opensource, and that’s what matters.

that’s not the way a lot of these things goes - especially when you start to talk about hardware. lots of times there are NDAs around even the interfaces to their libraries.

or sometimes there’s things called “vendored” code, where the library is included with the source. sometimes that’s easy to pick apart, but sometimes it’s not, sometimes someone’s copied and changed code from the library and barely documented what’s been done

code is often very messy. it’s easy to say ugh what shit devs! but that’s the reality, and we all write code sometimes that we look back on in a year and think it should have been a crime

or perhaps there are secrets embedded somewhere - even it source control history

That’s up to you to clean it up. It’s just like publishing any repository online.

that’s what i’m saying - it’s not like open sourcing is free. open sourcing software has a cost. people asked above different questions about eg who does that when a company has gone bankrupt?

i’ll add my own: how do you ensure a company doesn’t skimp on the dev time to open source, and accidentally release a secret that opens vulnerabilities in devices that people still use? like a signing key

Is a 250 USD collector’s edition from Limited Run on a game that originally cost 15 bucks “fair and reasonable”? I mean, they sell. People buy them. People buy them even when the cheaper option is still available.

well that’s an easy one - you can have whatever price you like for a collectors edition, as long as some edition of the game continues to be offered at or around the original price (or perhaps average unit sale price) that the game was sold at

again, we sometimes do this for housing in australia in some areas - you can build a luxury apartment block as long as you have a certain amount of affordable housing mixed with it

People are being too simplistic here and assuming that things are either copyrighted or on the public domain

i think perhaps you’re misreading what people are saying. copyright is an important tool to ensure people get paid for their creative works, and that investment gets put into such projects however the point of copyright is not to make people money - money is itself a tool to maximise the goods and services available. the point is to maximise the availability of goods and services.

i think it’s pretty easy to have a law that days if the work is not available for consumption, it loses at least some of the protections of the copyright system to ensure others can make it available for consumption in some way

based on whether something is being monetized, just a fair scenario for unmonetized redistribution. If you make it so people sharing and privately copying things at their own cost is fine but selling is reserved for the copyright holder it doesn’t matter how the holder prices things

i think now we’re kind of agreeing - im not sure that anyone is arguing that monetisation itself is the trigger - the availability of the product to the average (or perhaps original target) group on fair terms is the trigger

yeah the concept is great, but open sourcing often takes a lot of work. closed source code often relies on proprietary libraries etc and you can’t just publish them, or perhaps there are secrets embedded somewhere - even it source control history

the concept is great, the implementation faces some pretty big logical challenges

we do this for standards and patents: for a patent to form part of a standard, it must be granted on fair and reasonable, non-discriminatory grounds

it’s different in that the party is entering into that agreement voluntarily, however we use language like “fair and reasonable” already

git is exactly as unfriendly as a distributed source control system that doesn’t shy away from power user commands needs to be

… sure it’s difficult to comprehend, but yknow what’s worse? getting into a bullshit situation and having broken garbage repos in every other “user friendly” system on the planet

DNS will only leak domains (and subdomains); not paths

i went to the mozilla donation page and sent a contact request about wanting to financially support firefox but not giving a damn about the rest of the AI and adtech slop that mozilla is doing

here’s the response, for anyone that’s interested

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback with us. We genuinely value hearing from our supporters, as your insights help us understand what matters most to the Mozilla community.

It’s important to note that the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation are two separate entities within the Mozilla umbrella - Mozilla Corporation is responsible for developing and maintaining Firefox and other software products, and they are continuously working on improving the user experience, including addressing compatibility issues and promoting the browser to a wider audience.

The Mozilla Foundation, on the other hand, focuses on broader internet health and advocacy work. Our mission is to ensure the internet remains open and accessible for everyone, and this includes issues related to privacy, digital rights, and equity. To confirm, the survey that you had received was from the Mozilla Foundation.

With that being said, Firefox is funded by revenue generated through the product rather than donations. At the moment, there is no way for supporters to make a donation that will be designated to the development of Firefox. Have no fear, things are looking good for Firefox’s future and they plan to be around a long time, supporting folks with the most secure browser experience! Continuing to use Firefox, and recommending it to others, is the best way to support this project.

We truly appreciate your concerns about Firefox and their top priorities - We on the Mozilla Foundation strongly believe that issues such as privacy, online safety, and data security are connected to the products and services we all use every day. The work we do in these areas complements Mozilla Corporation’s focus on building better, more secure software like Firefox, and w encourage you to participate in our survey!

If you would like to input some of your thoughts and ideas into our Ideas discussion forum regarding Firefox and other Mozilla products, please visit: https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/idb-p/ideas

We thank you again for reaching out to our Mozilla Foundation Donor Care team, and please let us know if we can support your further!

🤮

who in australia thinks we have 20% muslims? we probably dont even have 20% christians

that’s… not a great argument though… plenty of people didn’t think their phones were missing anything and then the iphone came along