Its actually insane that the guy who owns the most valuable electric car company in the world would have a problem with climate diversification

Sure, but if you’re trying to make money off of this technology and it openly starts criticizing you, there isn’t really an explanation where you look good.

Better BlueSky than Twitter, but I hope everyone understands by now that there’s literally no reason to take a business’s word for anything unless they somehow have legally obligated themselves to doing that thing forever. Otherwise you can only trust them to keep doing it for as long as it’s worth it from an economic perspective. I’m not saying that it can’t ever happen that a business acts out of pure goodwill, but only a fool would count on it.

“…are you really asking me that while you’re smoking a cigarette? I don’t think you need to worry about me…”

I just wish people who complained about it would spend at least 5 seconds trying to think about an alternative way to achieve p2p electronic cash transactions that lacks the problems they see in cryptocurrency. But nobody ever does. At the very least, don’t try to convince me that the problems that cryptocurrency purports to try and solve aren’t real problems.

The license looks to be Creative Commons non-commercial, which means it isn’t open source, only source-available.

To be clear: the license chosen prohibits anyone who forks floorp and includes these extra bits from trying to make money from it, but the developer still intends on publishing the source code so it can still be scrutinized.

If you read the article you link, it makes it pretty clear that the baseball team was highly involved in the project including lobbying the government for it and are obviously the main beneficiaries of it, so while it is true that “the funding is for a city owned stadium” attaching “not the team” to the end is dishonest, in my opinion.

I have to say, I think the article actually does address what you’re saying, in particular here:

There are a couple of reasons as to why this is so surprising. Firstly, the Trust & Safety aspect: a few months ago, several Lemmy servers were absolutely hammered with CSAM, to the point that communities shut down and several servers were forced to defederate from one another or shut down themselves.

Simply put, the existing moderation tooling is not adequate for removing illegal content from servers. It’s bad enough to have to jump through hoops dealing with local content, but when it comes to federated data, it’s a whole other ball game.

The second, equally important aspect is one of user consent. If a user accidentally uploads a sensitive image, or wants to wipe their account off of a server, the instance should make an effort to comply with their wishes. Federated deletions fail sometimes, but an earnest attempt to remove content from a local server should be trivial, and attempting to perform a remote delete is better than nothing.

I also just want to point out that the knife cuts both ways. Yes, it’s impossible to guarantee nodes you’re federating with aren’t just ignoring remote delete requests. But, there is a benefit to acting in good faith that I think is easy to infer from the CSAM material example the article presents.

I think it has its own merits helping the common folk to understand that even $1 million a year for literally nothing is still not a sweet deal as what Clarence Thomas has now despite his entire tenure of bellyaching about his responsibilities.

“Could” as if there’s a possibility it will respect your privacy lmfao

I like 10 months each with 6 weeks of 6 days each for a total of 360 days and a 5 day holiday at the end of every year (6 days during a leap year)

But Jesse really has opened my eyes to the possibility of a lunisolar calendar.

I only enable telemetry for software provided by nonprofit organizations that are legally obligated to publish detailed financial records. Never give anyone that reserves the right to sell you out any of the benefit of your data for free.