imsodin

Well yeah, that's how licenses and copyright work - licenses can change. And sure on an adversary take-over (or corporate overloads taking control), that's problematic. However the beauty is, it's still MIT code: It can be forked (see what's happening with redis). However a project copyright (and DCO) is not in place to enable just that, it's in place to enable any license change by the project. Say a license is updated and there are good reasons for the project to move to the updated license - I think it's pretty reasonable that the project would like to be able to do that and therefore retain copyright. Of course you are also free not to contribute such a project. However claiming it's a license violation or unheard of is pretty disingenuous (formerly ingenious, thanks :) ).

This has nothing to do with GPL or MIT: If you own copyright of a GPL licensed code-base, you can change that license at any time. Of course that only applies to new code. And that's the same for GPL or MIT or any other license.

As far as I know xwayland in plasma/kde already does that. However as it's KDE, it is most likely configurable and might not be enabled by default :P

Honest question out of interest: Are you doing moderation on lemmy? I just remember reading about admins/mods complaining about the lack of tooling, sometimes plain functionality (removal of certain things) for effective moderation. I am not doing any myself so that's very 3rd-party-ish knowledge (if you even want to call it that).

Outlook (no I don't want it) (still) (really not) (WTF I SAID NO)

Could you do your best dunk on ES for me please? Not as in factually great, just whatever. I (ab)use quite a bit in my work, and can't say I have particularly strong opinions/feelings around it either way - I could use some help to change that xD

Looks like a federated wiki, which is great. And not a Wikipedia alternative. What makes wikipedia wikipedia is not the tech. Social and knowledge problems can't be solved with tech ;)
As much as Wikipedia has issues, as the ibis announcement states, it also works in many places. And federating it won't help with the issues of bad moderation, quite the contrary. And as much as I like nutomic (thanks for syncthing-android ;) ), I don't hear many good things about the lemmy moderation story. So I have my doubts. Lets hope I am wrong. Plus anyway, federated wikis is a great thing to have, ignoring the whole Wikipedia aspect.

Is this a case of !whoosh@lemmy.zip on @douz0a0bouz and bunch of upvoters part, or on mine?

Also wenn ich die Änderung beim Care amendment (Rolle der Frau) lese, und meine link-sozial Biases spielen lasse, kann ich schon sehen warum man da Nein sagen würde: Da wird eine sinnvolle Änderung (Streichen der Reduktion der Frau als Mutter, und alleinige Verantwortliche für unbezahlte Care-Arbeit) mit einer starken Abschwächung des Schutzes eben dieser unbezahlten Care-Arbeit verbunden.

Vorher (emphasis mine):

[...] ensure that woman shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Nachher:

[...] shall strive to support such provision [of care within the family].

Gut: Der Artikel betrifft jetzt Care in der Familie allgemein, ohne das auf Frauen/Mütter zu reduzieren. Schlecht: Vorher hat der Staat zu sichern, dass diese Care möglich ist ohne ökonomische Zwänge. Jetzt hat der Staat nur zu versuchen diese Care zu unterstützen. Das ist extrem viel schwächer, und löst bei mir alle Alarmglocken aus für eine neoliberale Abbau von sozialen Massnahmen. Persönlich bin ich ja dafür und halte es für gut für alle involvierten, wenn Elternteile arbeiten und Kinder in die Kita gehen, aber warum sollte das die einzige Variante sein: Viele möchten zu Hause sein und das finde ich auch ok. Und ich habe das Gefühl diese Haltung ist weit verbreitet hier, und in einer (ehemals?) sehr traditionell, katholischen Gesellschaft wie Irland kann ich mir gut vorstellen dass das auch so ist.

Allerdings sehe ich nichts dergleichen beim Family Amendment, also liege ich wohl eher völlig daneben mit obigen xD

Ähnliches nervt mich auch in der Schweiz bei Initiativen so häufig: Da werden extrem wichtige und gute Änderung häufig überladen. Manchmal ideologisch/absichtlich, aber manchmal scheint es mir auch einfach aus einer Übereifer hinaus: Aka "Wenn wir schon den Aufwand machen, dann doch gleich richtig". Und dann kommen halt auch Nebensächlichkeiten in die Änderung, die im besten Falle die Angriffsfläche erhöhen und im schlechtesten Fall ein Grund sind für viele abzulehnen, obwohl sie die Kernforderung eigentlich unterstützen.

Please look at past trends in fertility, and predictions of reputable, independent sources. The growth rate is already sinking fast (just in case: the rate is sinking, population is still growing). With the current/recent situation, in the short term the growth continues, but slows and mid-term there will be a reduction in population. And already today we do have the means to support this population much more sustainably, we just choose not to (we even produce food to turn it into gasoline o.O ): It would require a massive wealth/standards re-distribution, and re-distribution is socialist and thus bad (/s in case that's necessary). A possible starting point: https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth-over-time

Not Australian or American, but hey it's the internet so why not voice second hand knowledge: I heard Aussies pride themselves on being (relatively) egaliatarian, despising individuals elevating themselves above others. Seems to me about as antithetical to US mentalitity as it goes :)

Yeah no exact opposite for me: Big server means lots of user data making abuse of it more appealing and impactful. While an admin of a small instance having some fun digging through user internals would really do no harm (I don't believe that's a particularly typical hobby of small instance admins though xD ).

I hope it costs those companies a ton of money to walk away from the auctioned contracts. Sounds like a typical problem of many public construction projects: They get evaluated on cost only, many companies (in bad faith or not) bid at too low prices and thus get the contract over other companies which might be much better set up to get the project to completion in time/in budget/on good standards. And as they are better set up, they likely have a better handle on real costs - as in actual subject experts evaluate costs, not just some sales/business people making optimistic estimates ("guesstimates"). And maybe even finance people thinking about stuff like possible higher inflation ahead of time and counting that in/hedging against that (not sure if hedging on inflation is a thing, but then again almost everything seems to be a thing in finance so I assume it is :P ).