You didn’t tell us when he asks if everything is OK. That is a large omission, and I hope you can update the original post with examples of what led up to the question being asked. Also, what is the setup there? Are you working at Subway making sandwiches? Do you have adjacent desks? Do you show up to work with black eyes? We are left wondering what’s up.

Certainly anyone who repeatedly asks “Are you OK?” is exacerbating some issue, but I would be hesitant to offer any advice about what you ought to do without reading more details.

(In other words, the missing missing reasons applies here just as it did in the original scenario, for those who remember it.)

But that’s not what happened. If the lawyers are saying that some open source groups can’t work with open source groups in Russia, as Linus indicated, that doesn’t mean either group dislikes the other group. I don’t think this is a question of animosity.

It’s banning contributors but not contributions themselves. So there must be inconvenience but somewhat effective workarounds. That could be fun to see unfold.

It has to be there, because politics is connected with lawmaking, and open source software is dependent on laws.

A lot of people like to say that politics isn’t in their life or that they keep politics out of their life, but the reality is that’s just not true. The rules that govern society affect you, always, either with or without your input, either with or without your acknowledgment.

You’re probably trying to say that we should keep pointless politicking out of open source software, and I agree, but that’s going to come down to personal definitions of pointlessness.

I generally agree, and I also think that the spy agencies would assassinate him within a couple of days. There’s a bunch of men who have been running those groups for decades, and they don’t want to give up their power because some lunatic is making a power grab on the White House.

It’s interesting that you think the national guard would support him. I don’t think it’s as simple as that. We can be sure that most lifers in the military have considered what they would do if the unelected commander-in-chief gave an obviously unconstitutional order. It’s not just a hypothetical to them.

That’s generally false. But even if it’s true, all the boss has to do is argue that medium-term profits will be generated by whatever policy they want to adopt. Since nobody knows the future, they might be right, and they’re legally rock solid.

In other words, the duty to increase value produces unfalsifiable policy claims. So it is meaningless.

The Pirate Bay will always be with us.

The shape of my body.

The article did mention a fundamental obstacle. It said quite clearly that we would run out of resources before we had enough computing power. I suppose you could counter that by arguing that we could discover magic, or magical technology, or a lot of new resources through space exploration.

Of course things get more efficient. But in the past few decades they’ve gotten efficient in predictable, and mostly predicted, ways. It’s certainly possible that totally unexpected things can happen. I could win the lottery next week. Is that the standard? Are you pushing the stance that says AGI is somewhat less likely than winning the lottery or getting struck by lightning, but by golly it’s more than zero, how dare you suggest that it’s anywhere close to zero?

It’s the way you opened your post. You felt that perhaps Lemmy is largely communist, and some of us just don’t see that trend at all. That means either you’re ignoring many users, or you haven’t spent a reasonable amount of time browsing, which in turn makes it a waste of time for us to answer your question.

That being said, I can only speak to my motivation. Presumably some other people downvoted for similar reasons.

I think the details matter a lot. If I’m an active contributor to a site and I get a bait and switch, then I’m probably going to leave the site permanently. I try to keep track of what’s happening to make that less likely.

If you’re setting up a service and you realize it doesn’t scale up well, I think you should try to state your roadmap on your site somewhere, so the users can expect changes that might happen. If people go in expecting that you might need to monetize in certain ways, they won’t be disappointed when you do. Or rather, they might be slightly disappointed but they’ll understand.

Skills are not the solution. These guys have jobs. Someone will do those jobs.

Massively punish wage theft, too.

I feel like the other answers undercut the message that you were trying to deliver. Users here are quite clear about when they’re describing their own opinions versus when they’re describing how a system theoretically works. Nobody is getting tricked about anything.

The big white collar crimes are far more of a danger to society than many of the so-called blue collar crimes. Massive pollution leading to global warming, which impacts billions of people around the globe, that’s high impact, and that’s 100% white collar.

Or pick something that’s not as dramatic. Pick the bank collapse in the US 15 years ago, where many people lost their homes but we didn’t see finance experts get locked up even though they created a massive catastrophe for the country and had to get bailed out by the government. But of course we would lock up someone for stealing an orange, or breaking a car window, because somehow those are more dangerous.

Or let’s get even smaller scale. Let’s just talk about wage theft. If my boss steals thousands of dollars from my paycheck, as she did many years ago, there’s zero chance she’s going to get locked up. But if I were to steal $20 from the cash register, the police might take me away in handcuffs.

We all agree that the bond system functions. The question is whether it’s discriminatory, and data shows that it is, which is why it’s no longer used in some places. It’s not only the corrupt judges, it’s the judges. It’s not only the judges, it’s the cops who know that the judges will do their thing. You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride, as they say, and this is one piece of it.

And suppose you get arrested. Now you want to post bond, but part of that involves pretrial release conditions, which would ordinarily be a violation of your constitutional rights, but if you agree to them, then they’re acceptable. And what’s your real option here? Get locked up until the trial? Then you can’t work and you lose your house and your car and your family. So you get onerous conditions imposed on you, assumed guilty until proven innocent, and somehow it’s supposed to be consistent with the Bill of Rights. We all know it’s not, but that’s no matter, because the appeals courts are down with it, and nobody can stop them.

It really doesn’t mean anything to say what a home might cost in a certain area, without specifying that area. People can’t just move across the country, because they don’t have jobs. And if you’re putting them in a situation where they would have to commute an hour and a half each way, that has its own set of issues.

The numbers that you include look nice, but I’ve seen a lot of other numbers that don’t look nice. Obviously this all depends where you live, how much money you have, and what kind of place you want to buy.

Hint: it’s a bigger number than the hundreds. LASD is a giant gang, to begin with.

I probably wouldn’t describe them as flawed, because the goal wasn’t and couldn’t ever be perfection, so then everything is flawed, but then is it really a flaw? It sounds like more of an issue of what’s useful in what type of situation.