If you’re pressing a button and want to cancel you can pretty much universally just move off the button before releasing the press and it won’t trigger the action. Works 99% of the time with a mouse, almost as often with a touch interface. Some custom-coded buttons will action on start press (not great imo) and some buttons do some other action on a long press, but if you’re holding it and nothing else has happened just dragging off is safe enough.

Seems to be a federation issue between programming.dev and lemmy.world, as far as I can tell every lemmy.world post and all comments under them are showing up with 0 score but other instances are fine.

Yep, looks like it’s all working from this end now

I leave on time, how is that an insult? I’d be much more insulted if someone asked me to work for them for free. That’s what unpaid overtime is.

I still can’t wrap my head around the fact there’s a group who intentionally named themselves “proud boys” which somehow isn’t a group for openly gay men. If they weren’t a neo-fascist terrorist organisation I’d think the whole thing was a joke.

If someone said they were concerned about their sugar intake would you tell them to just stop eating entirely? It’s possible to take steps towards privacy-friendly services without cutting yourself off from the modern world in the same way as you can cut back on sugar and still eat food.

You absolutely do not need to “burn all your devices” to improve your privacy, suggesting so is unhelpful at best.

There’s no point looking for logic. These people truly believe granting a licence restricts the rights of people who don’t agree to the licence, which is the exact opposite of what licenses do. It’s blatant misinformation but if you call them out on it (even by quoting their own link) they literally think you’re an astroturfer for AI, because that makes more sense to them than the fact they’re obviously wrong.

QR codes essentially just encode text, as long as you’re using a sensible QR code reader and check any URLs before opening them there’s minimal risk to scanning a QR code.

Have you considered events from their perspective? From what you’ve described, they were told to wait until a notification was sent, then they were given a notification with the instruction “send this”. If it was me my first thought would absolutely be that that’s the notification to be sent, the only reason I’d hesitate is because those sort of communications are well outside my job description.

The reason they sent the product afterwards is obvious; they were told to send them after the notification was sent, and they had sent the notification.

From what you’ve described, you are communicating incredibly poorly then blaming your workers for misunderstanding.

You’re entirely missing the point; you are under no obligation to follow the rules for a licence you did not agree to. The CC licence restrictions apply only to those who use that licence to use your work.

I licence a work to Alice for display in one commercial location only. I licence the same work to Bob for display non-commercially, who then displays it in a different location. Charlie has no licence, but reproduces part of the work using fair use doctrine as part of a paid review. Alice’s use breaches Bob’s licence; Alice did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Bob’s use breaches Alice’s licence; Bob did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Charlie’s use breaches both licences; Charlie does not need a licence at all so is not in breach of copyright.

By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant.

It says it right there in plain English, it only grants copyright permission where they need your permission anyway. The restrictions are to the additional rights you grant, it does not revoke other parties’ already existing rights unless they invoke this licence to use your work. The licence does not restrict commercial use for people not invoking the licence. It’s incredibly unlikely anyone “fears” you giving them more rights.

If you keep hearing the same arguments maybe you should consider what they’re saying instead of instantly dismissing them as astroturfers for disagreeing with you? Do any of them actually complain about the fact you’re licencing your content or are they complaining that you’re saying the licence does something it does not do?

As for “what business it is” of mine; this is a public forum. If you’re not ready to defend yourself don’t spread misinformation.

People calling you out for being wrong isn’t astroturfing. It’s not an anti-AI licence and by definition does not restrict use (including AI-related) more than standard automatic copyright.

The problem with your argument is everyone’s only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don’t need permission the licence doesn’t matter. You don’t need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.

If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license.

And all that’s still ignoring the fact you’re putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It’s ironic because you demand someone be a lawyer to refute an obviously incorrect claim made by a non-lawyer. If you consider me answering the question you asked directly of me “irony” then I suppose I can see how you might consider that comment ironic.

It’s definitely worth noting that you’ve attempted to shift the topic well away from the absurdity of using an open licence to do the opposite of what licences do and instead onto the topic of who is a lawyer and the definition of irony.

Ironic, considering you are undoubtedly not a lawyer and have evidently never even dealt with copyright issues.

CC licences are handy copyleft licences to allow others to use your work with minimal effort. Using them to restrict what others can do is a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright works. If you want to restrict others’ use of your work copyright already handles that, a licence can only be more permissive than default copyright law. You can sign a contract with another party if you want to further restrict their use of your work, but you’ll generally also have to give them something in return for the contract to be valid (known as “consideration”). If you wish to do so you can include a copyright notice (eg “Copyright © 2024 onlinepersona. All rights reserved.”) but that hasn’t been a requirement for a long time.

Adding a CC link and falsely claiming it’s an anti-AI licence is misinformation and undoubtedly does add confusion.

Likely because it’s blatant misinformation and very spammy. Licences permit additional use, they do not restrict use beyond what copyright already does. I imagine there’d be fewer downvotes if they didn’t incorrectly claim licencing their content was somehow anti-AI. Still spammy and pointless, but at least not misinformation.

Imagine if someone ended every comment with “I DO NOT GRANT PERMISSION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO READ THIS COMMENT. ANY USE OF THIS COMMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR ANY REASON IS ILLEGAL. THIS COMMENT CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ANY NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONS IN RELATION TO ANY CRIME.”

A bit silly, no?

There’s definitely some issues that jump out to me on first read.

1. I’m not sure about “indivisible”. An area should be able to self-govern if desired. More detail needed.
2. Awful. Removing people’s voting rights in general is bad, and something as nebulous as “a criminal offence” is incredibly easy to abuse. Are people no longer citizens if they steal a loaf of bread? Also, voting age here is 16/18.
4. No. Guns are incredibly rare where I am. I’d rather not have one, and I’d prefer not to risk getting shot every time some asshole on the street gets mad.
7. Limiting land to a single use is generally not a great idea. What if for instance you have too much agricultural land and not enough housing?
10. A central state-owned bank isn’t a bad idea, but abolishing all non-state banks is iffy. Should the government really have so much direct control over everyone’s finances?
12. Your salary should not be based on the amount of unprotected sex you have. That’s just silly. Other support should be available for those who need it.

There’s no discount there, you’re just accepting their marketing bullshit. That sounds to me like the company is double-dipping by shoving ads in your face and making the product objectively worse, then charging even more for a “premium” model where the only difference is they haven’t intentionally downgraded it.

with extras like […] no lockscreen ads

What the fuck? Why is that an extra not just the default? It’s great that this product isn’t riddled with ads, but that’s like saying it’s great a burger is not made of human shit; it’s crazy that anyone would tolerate a shit-burger in the first place.

Maybe ads are normal in the e-reader space for some reason, but that’s just insane to me.