You could use an app

If 50% of firefox users donated 2 dollars per year mozilla could work for people instead of Google or at least people AND google

Why is that a gap worth filling? There is no benefit to users as long as its free of a EULA they don’t have to care either way. For those wanting to produce open source software based on same they already have all the rights they could need. The only party clamoring for permissively licensed software are companies intending to close off the source and sell other people’s work.

I understand why they would want to do that I don’t understand why anyone would feel the need to work for free for something someone else closes off.

How about just firewall France and discover if legislators find cause to pass new laws.

Already compressed files like video don’t meaningfully compress more. Compression isn’t magic.

So they are a bigot basically.

There are dangerous people out there but try to remember that most people are just like yourself. I remember having to walk home several miles at an inhuman hour after work do to transportation challenges and for the most parts the streets were empty but there were some folks out and I remember feeling paranoid at the sort of people who are out at 3AM.

Then I realized how ridiculous my thoughts were I was out here after all so why was I judging them. They were most likely coming home from work or going to work, or out for some cool air or any number of things. They were people not caricatures. Objectively the level of danger was actually no much different than driving in busy traffic and probably less than the folks commuting by bike given how people drive.

I’m not engaging further with what I think is a bad analogy.

I guess all these “not me though” or “but a bear will kill you” types don’t get that they are outing themselves as being of questionable trustworthiness.

Maybe outing themselves as pedants who don’t like shitty analogies. How do you get from disagreeing with labeling all men predators to … must be a predator. That just seems like you glued two concepts together and expected it to make a coherent thought. If A in some universe and B in some universe then if A thus B.

I don’t believe such a high amount of men who aren’t predators are bothered by it

I’m not a predator. I’m bothered by it

They might not be sexual predators

So because I disagree I might be a rapist. Super real there.

but I have no doubt they would gladly vote away women’s rights because its their party or its the christian way or some other shit like that.

I’m an Atheist who votes Democrat and supports women’s rights

Truly innocent men would just leave women scared of them alone

This is a discussion forum. The poster started a thread to discuss the topic. I’m discussing the topic. Nobody is attacking anyone with their words.

There is no reason to convince them

This is a many to many discussion forum people aren’t just engaging with the poster they are engaging with other readers interested in the same topic. Notice how our discussion is a sub-thread to each other and merely about the topic broached by the original poster.

doing so only makes them more afraid.

You are infantalizing the poster by imagining that she creates a topic but is rendered afraid by the mere fact that some people don’t agree with her. I don’t think that is even slightly reasonable.

This post could be a subject of an entire paper on how to write dishonestly and for emotional impact instead of honest argument. Please stop doing this.

The poster brought up the man vs bear debate it was the entire topic of discussion. This is the last sentence in my post.

It’s not shocking that the 99.9% of men who aren’t predators waiting in the bush feel justified in feeling unfairly vilified.

Please explain how I told them they deserve it. Use small words.

Of course I’m not. I just think the analogy is just incredibly overstated. Bears are in fact all fairly dangerous. Most men just aren’t

It is legal ethical moral and reasonable to call the cops because it is the only practical way to make people stop breaking the law. If the cops don’t want to be prosecuted or hated they can stop overreacting and hurting people. If the people want to avoid the risk of excess harm they can stop committing crimes or vote for politicians who hold cops accountable. None of this is my problem.

Regarding Man v Bear I think the topic is rather silly. Most bears aren’t looking to have a meet and greet if you do come across a bear one of three things are true. It’s here to eat you, it didn’t leave because its a she-bear and it has cubs its protecting, or you just startled it. If any of the above is true you are at best in serious danger. If it is actually trying to prey upon you then you are probably fucked. Whereas 100% of the bears you surprise in the woods are extremely dangerous 99.99% of people you meet man or woman are just people like yourself not looking for trouble.

It’s not shocking that the 99.9% of men who aren’t predators waiting in the bush feel justified in feeling unfairly vilified.

When someone commits crimes it is legal, ethical, moral, and reasonable that you call the cops on them. It’s also reasonable to expect that the cops arrest them not summarily execute them. You can’t make the people responsible for the cops behavior.

Manufacturing prop money for movie purposes isn’t illegal. Passing it as legal tender IS. Note that passing and creating are 2 separate crimes. Notably even though he is giving it away he has specifically stated that the aim of this scheme is for it to be used for commerce by unwitting victims.

It doesn’t matter for practical purposes you can’t make people pay attention as if driving without the actual engagement of driving. There is going to be a delay in taking over and in a lot of cases it wont matter by the time the human is effectively in control.

Autopilot isn’t being marketed to aviation enthusiasts nor is it a plane so it doesn’t matter how autopilot in planes works it matters what the perception is. They could have used a more appropriate term like advanced cruise control

FSD is just a lie because its a description of a product they intend to develop not something that exists on the car you are buying now

I would instantly discount it based purely on not having third party verification or enough details for a third party to replicate.

Once you start hosting an instance that has open registration, it’s not just “their house” anymore. They are providing a service to people. They do so willingly. Arbitrairly blocking instances because you don’t know how something works and don’t bother to check it isn’t the way to host a free and open instance.

You seem to be uniquely bad at reading so this is comment is the start of this subthread you originally replied to. Nobody ever suggested they COULDN’T implement any rule they please. It was never a point anyone brought up for you to be refuting. It is literally you dishonestly trying to steer the discussion away from the actual point of discussing SHOULD they.

The discussion is not whether they can set those rules its should they and should we keep participating