Now I need the chart of people lying about lying about their vote!

While I understand where you're coming from, I believe that it distracts from a massive positive effect that the GPL has: the way it ensures collaboration. Lots of contributors to GPL software do so in the knowledge that they are working on something great together. I myself have felt discouraged to contribute to MIT licensed software, because I know that others might just take all the hard work, make something proprietary of it and give nothing back.

I see GPL as some sort of public transaction, it is indeed more limiting than MIT and offers less pure freedom in that sense. But I just love how it uses copyright not for enforcing licensing payment for some private entity, but enforces a contribution to the community as a whole. I find this quite beautiful.

The headline feels a bit alarmist to me. The article itself is a bit better and more nuanced, but still I feel they are putting way to much drama around this device while almost all these issues already exist as small slabs of electronics that we wear all the time. Combined with smartwatches, smartphones do almost all the spying that is described here and add some GPS tracking wherever you go.

This is not to say that this is not a big issue, merely that this issue is not related to this new device. And also I believe Apple is in fact the only big tech provider that actually tries to be somewhat privacy conscious (Google and Microsoft don't give damn).

I think he makes the mistake of assuming that every person has a similar life experience to his own. I've read his biography, and apparently he was extremely intelligent and acted like an adult from a very young age. It could be that he hated being seen as a child and saw himself as a fully functional adult in a transitioning body.

In everything he says and does there is an extreme single-mindedness: his extremely strict free software and privacy related ideas show this. I think he applies a similar single-mindedness to a clearly nuanced situation, namely that of conscent. The nuance of power dynamics and coercion probably don't play a role in his experience and therefore he ignores it. This results in the very wrong and dangerous opinions stated in the article.

I am not saying this to excuse any of his opinions, this is just my interpretation of where it might come from. It's sad that the people around him are seemingly unable to educate him on these topics, but I believe it might be the same stubbornness that made him the proponent of the Free Software movement that is causing him to not mentally grow on this specific topic. It's a truly unfortunate situation, but one that should not be ignored and people who oppose him because of these opinions are right to do so.

I'm glad you bring up the power imbalance. The "both sides have been doing horrible stuff" only works if both sides have equal footing, which they clearly do not. This does not negate the crimes commited by Hamas, but extremism doesn't come from nowhere and Israël has a responsibility in that.

There is indeed no moral equivalence, but where does it come from?

This culture of extreme jihadist violence is not something that suddenly came to being.

He talks as if both sides are equal, except in the way they commit warcrimes, but that is not true. One is a massive state that has money and military power that eclipses that of the other. The other is a country that has been losing land, homes and dignity with every passing year.

Being disgusted by warcrimes is the privilege of an army that is able to still do war without commiting them. With the massive power imbalance comes a genuine desensitization of the underdog to violence, as they feel no other way to fight and have a chance at winning or making a difference.

I feel like the author is choosing exactly what part to compare in both groups (the morality of their war tactics) while silently hoping that the reader forgets any other differences between the two parties.

Even if you know it's fiction you get the feeling that you are on the "good" side, which may colour your perception on the US military interventions.

Well, not really as I'm European and have no connection to any side in the Vietnam war.

I just feel that if your game is based on real life wars than you should be very careful to give a nuanced view of the situation. Even allowing a campaign on both sides would be interesting if executed well.

Just look at issues in software you use.

Start with a simple project. Clone the code and try to build it (this is already a very big step in software development, so don't be angry with yourself if it takes a while). Poke around in the code, change some stuff, get a feel for the architecture. Then see if there is an issue that you could help with. Ask questions on the projects communication channel(s). Most developers will be kind if you ask for help or advice.

Good luck! 🤞

Bad actors are already commiting crimes, they will have no trouble "illegally" using encryption software to keep their message hidden. Encryption is just math, you cannot stop a computer from performing an encryption algorithm.

You can however "make it illegal" for software to do this, what just results in normal citizens having unencrypted communication, while people who are up to no good are still encrypting their stuff.

🤦

I personally like transparent enforcement of false information moderation. What I mean by that is something similar to beehaw where you have public mod logs. A quick check is enough to get a vibe of what is being filtered, and in Beehaw's case they're doing an amazing job.

Mod logs also allow for a clear record of what happened, useful in case a person does not agree with the action a moderator took.

In that case it doesn't really matter if the moderators work directly for big tech, misuse would be very clearly visible and discontent people could raise awareness or just leave the platform.

Just to be clear, this phone:

• is the only smartphone available that uses fairtrade gold
• has a 100% recycled plastic back cover
• uses ASI certified fair aluminium
• is by far the most repairable smartphone currently on the market

The mainstream electronics supply chain is tainted with literal blood and slavery. The importance of what this company tries to prove and achieve cannot be understated.

The fact that they remove the headphone jack might be annoying and feel like counter to their main goal. As an electronics engineer I can say that removing this jack makes the full phone circuit board more simple, decreases the space used and allows them to make the phone lighter or put a better battery in. As most people are now used to not having this port in phones anymore, this seems like an easy concession to make to keep the design load as low as possible. Remember that they are trying to compete with companies that are way bigger and have way more design resources.

I am all for criticizing companies so that they can improve, but these accusations of greenwashing and them completely disregarding their goal are simply untrue. The difference between them and literally any other smartphone manufacturer in terms of supply chain fairness, repairability and warranty is night and day.

Please don't make us lose this great attempt at improving the smartphone industry by making perfect the enemy of already pretty fucking good.