Show Navigation
Notices by Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp) (lxo@gnusocial.net), page 60
-
thanks for the news clipping. I'm not sure I see a common thread, or a point you're trying to make. are you just trying to show that you're able to post links to sources? that's great if so, posting sources is good!
unfortunately for you, and maybe for me, after you spoiled your own reputation in my perception, the odds of my taking any of it seriously enough as to actually spend my time reading or watching them are pretty low. I acknowledge that's fallacious reasoning, but unfortunately there's so much data that we have to resort to such heuristics at times.
you're mistaken about your guess. the party that lula belongs to is not so strong in the current senate, where the inquiry took place. bolsonaro has burned himself with a much wider spectrum of politicians and population after so many screwups
-
x9 me parece uma boa tradução pra spoiler!
-
nem estraga-prazeres?
-
nem estragar surpresa?
-
if it's a joke, it's not funny. the dependence and the impotence caused by nonfree software are quite serious.
I'm not sure I ever had a chance to deliver this speech in English:
https://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/#Trabaco
-
I've had good experiences with gandi.net, and I like that they support some free software projects, but their web interface has become more javascrippled than when I started using it :-(
-
it was not. if fediverse instances were to require some form of certification for deployment, if I were to choose, I'd set such requirement at a minimum of 1M users, so as to encourage instances that would go past this user count to stop growing and start other instances instead, growing the fediverse in a healthier, less centralized way
-
extract from "the right to follow", yet another dystopia that will be mistaken as an instruction manual? :-(
-
LGPLv3 is an additional permission over GPLv3, so you need both. LGPLv2.* were standalone, self-contained licenses.
thanks for setting software free, and thanks for arranging for it to remain free for all users
-
I've used 2048 for this purpose. it's distracting enough as to alleviate the feeling of wasted time
but really, a book (pdf/epub can work even in small screens, if your eyes are up to it) feels more satisfying and useful to me
-
that's an automotive USB v0 plug :-)
-
> people come and go [from the fediverse]
even being alive is a fad
-
*nod*, 'k
hacking on (= developing, don't confuse with cracking) software is fun, is useful for anyone to automate boring tasks, it's a form of art, it's literary work, it's speech, it's a way to control the electronic devices that augment what you as an individual can do, think and recall. it *must* be free for anyone.
requiring certified professionals makes sense for activities that can bring harm to people or environments. writing software per se can't. deploying software to perform jobs that may bring harm onto people or environments is where professional certification requirements should be placed, if after-the-fact damages won't do
now, this works for free software, because then professionals in charge of deployment can look and test and adapt the software and issue an informed opinion about its quality. proprietary software, that imposes unknowable behaviors, ought to be held to a different standard of responsibility
alas, our societies have it backwards
-
you don't have to have it every single day for it to bring you harm. and what's more, it's been harmful to everyone who's ever had it. unlike the vaccines, that have been good for most everyone who've had it. but unfortunately fear is not based on reason, not can it be entirely overridden by reason
-
this is a very flex bison
-
serious? :-( your kids would likely have loved it. my daughter did
-
I mean, if Wikipedia lies about a topic I'm deeply familiar with, probably more so than anyone else in the universe (the presence of blobs in Linux), because some editor repeatedly censored the facts and the undisputable evidence, how can one trust other pieces of information in there?
I can't. and that's how it should be. there's no such thing as authoritative sources. science is a collaborative enterprise that requires active work to distill information from garbage so as to build knowledge and wisdom. you can use Wikipedia to get some basic information, take the links and references and get some more, but then you *should* seek other independent sources, instead of taking it as sacred scriptures. heck, even sacred scriptures were written by fallible humans, and reflect wisdom and beliefs of their times
Wikipedia is great, but you have to know the right way to use it to not hurt yourself. like a hammer or a knife, it's a tool that can be misused and hurt
-
is consoom the way inhabitants of mars (AKA barsoom) say it? :-)
-
there are lots of violence against people who "look different" or "behave unacceptably". Brazil (where I live) has a very bad track record in this regard :-(
I guess people get abused by their wage slave masters, then turn to vulnerable groups to "get even". vulnerable not for being individually weaker, mind you, but for being perceived as different, isolated, discriminated
cowards!
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me
super trustworthy food!
Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp)
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the