Library of Congress is not part of the executive branch so constitutionally speaking, they don't have new bosses unless Congress says so.
That being said, I could make the argument that DOGE is not a valid department and that all government employees should have resisted yet here we are.
I have a stupid question: how did El Salvador even agree to this? Like what mechanism allowed Republicans to send people there to begin with?
Ruined by Republican voters who would rather make sure the immigrants are punished than survive the next bird flu.
By racists who feel the need to push down their fellow man than save them.
Reminds me of this image:
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
Nothing in the Constitution prevents the President from holding the office from a jail cell.
I'm telling you, the premise of this should be a Michael Schur production.
That's really rare. Back when I was in school the professor who taught the class and wrote the book would, every year, change enough of it to sell a new addition. Either move the sections around or change the problems.
Just so he could make more money.
It was a calculus class.
Fuck him.
My guess is that he's hoping that Trump will kick the bucket while in office and get a free pass without needing to campaign.
Remember your vote matters!
EVEN IF immigrants are taking "black jobs"....WHO IS HIRING THE IMMIGRANTS?!
WHY is it always the immigrants fault for being hired and never the capital class hiring the immigrants?!
Jesus fucking Christ his followers are dumb.
If you simply want to allow people to view your code, you can just upload it to GitHub or something similar.
By default, your work is copyright and you hold all rights, excluding those you give up to GitHub.
Open-Sourcing your project is all about choosing the license that you want your users to use.
Please, for the love of God, choose an existing license. Don't go out and try to make one yourself or mix and match. Not only do you open yourself up to liability but it just makes it harder for you to keep track of it.
Choosing a license is all about your personal preference and what your goals are. The two ends of the spectrum:
There is a lot of middle ground between these two philosophies. Most of the major licenses have seen some level of court cases. I personally use AGPL, which is often seen as one of the strongest, most restrictive, licenses.
I do not recommend releasing code to public domain. This often is a point of contention between OSS purists and OSS "spirit". I personally believe we're entering a new world of AI-driven content and I don't want more code feeding that beast.
The license is then copied and pasted to a LICENSE file at the root of your repo and, boom. You've open sourced your code.
Keep in mind: that commit (and all future commits) will be available under that license until your copyright expires, so long as that license exists in your repo. You cannot claw it back.
One word of advice: you aren't likely going to see a bunch of people downloading your stuff. So don't get your hopes up that you'll have people submitting bug reports or making PRs, etc. All of my projects are just for me to use with one or two people reviewing it for fun. All but one, anyway.
If you read the reactions from banks, it's sickening. They are threatening to raise fees elsewhere, or interest rates, to "make up for lost revenue" because heaven forbid they just make less money and be okay with it.
These companies make obscene amounts of money.
They don't need that much money.
It's sickening.
Target is a data company. They literally have petabytes of data that tracks and monitors their customers to know what they buy and what makes them spend more time in stores.
They knew their customers supported DEI initiatives. They have the numbers. They have data show the boycott is working and yet they are doubling down on removing rainbow merchandise.
Target removing DEI was to bend a knee and not based on any logical business decision.