This is a great suggestion -- I used balance a few years ago the last time they did one of these year free trials and thought it was great.
It was after that free year ran out that I found medito, which was a worthy substitute despite not being quite as personalized.
If someone makes a dangerous product, it is reasonable to expect them to include appropriate safety features to reduce the risk their product poses to society.
The "victims" here aren't the automobile manufacturers, they're the people whose cars got stolen and those who were run over by a reckless joyrider or shot in a drive-by enabled by criminals having easy access to insecure, easy-to-steal vehicles. These are all people who wouldn't have befallen harm if these vehicles had standard anti-theft features.
The reason nobody's talking about suing bike manufacturers is because nobody was stealing bikes and riding around shooting people or crashing through the sides of buildings.
I think there is absolutely a legal argument that anti-theft features are critical safety features in cars, specifically. Not sure whether that argument will hold up in court, but it's not anywhere near as straightforward as "bike manufacturers don't have to care about theft, why should car manufacturers?"
Why does a car manufacturer have to care about theft at all?
This argument doesn't make any sense to me. Why bother with keys and locks then? Is it more practical to expect society to eliminate literally all crime?
I'm sure there are good reasons to dislike this lawsuit, but this isn't one of them.
Oof yeah was not aware of these at the time of my original comment.
LMG (Linus Media Group) was making careless mistakes and publishing a lot of inaccurate data, sometimes going as far to not recommend or label a product as "bad" after misusing it. This was likely due to an unnecessarily rushed pace of video releases that came from prioritizing sponsor revenue over accuracy, which many feel is a pretty massive ethics breach for a news outlet that is marketing itself as a home for highly objective, data driven content (LTT Labs).
Gamers Nexus called out this behavior in a 40 minute video which kicked off all the drama, and Linus posted a kneejerk response on the LTT forum where he largely defended his behavior and conclusions and badmouthed Gamers Nexus for going public with these criticisms instead of sharing them privately.
A few days later, LTT put out a video that was almost entirely LTT leaders other than Linus admitting how bad everything was, sharing some details on their processes, and committing to being more transparent & taking a week off uploading videos to rework things. But the video also included some tone deaf moments, like a plug for merch and Linus talking for a bit where he sort of apologized but didn't really talk for long enough to acknowledge all of his fuck ups. He did say "I'm sorry" at one point which was pretty meme worthy.
The video was also monetized when it went up and the description had links to their merch store in it, which people called out as slimy and LTT subsequently removed.
Different people have different conclusions -- some think it was a total non-apology, but I personally am satisfied. To me all their issues were the result of bad processes/automation run amok, so their commitment to reworking their processes and being more transparent about them with the community is exactly what I wanted to see.
But that's just me -- I think there are many valid conclusions that can be drawn from this.
Edit: There was also a reddit post on Reddit made by a former employee, Madison, that made allegations of sexual harassment. If true, these would be extremely damning, and to my knowledge LMG has not spoken on them yet. I also am just learning about this, so I don't know whether these statements have been corroborated by anyone.
No that actually helps a lot! I was actually trying to filter an entire instance, but thought I had to do so but putting the domain of that instance into "Domain Filters"
I try to structure my commits in a way that minimizes their blast radius, which usually likes trying to reduce the number of files In touch per commit.
For example, my commit history would look like this:
And then as I continue working, all changes will be git commit --fixuped to one of those two commit's hashes depending on where they occur.
And when it's time to rebase in full, I can do a git rebase master --interactive --autosquash.
I'm absolutely thrilled to have sync on the Fediverse, and will happily pay for a yearly subscription to help ensure LJD has sufficient compensation to keep the app up-to-date with whatever changes come to the Android/Lemmy APIs years down the road.
The problem with (even excellent) free apps for platforms like this, is they require consistent maintenance to keep up with both the platform they run on (Android), and the platform they serve content for (Lemmy). That is not a trivial amount of work, and is absolutely deserving of continued, recurring compensation IMO.
A one-time payment might make sense for a simple native game that gets produced once, has no web component, and never needs another update for its entire lifetime, but not for this. You aren't paying for a singular product, you're paying for a service. You wouldn't go to the barber and winged about needing to pay every time I get my hair cut.
My favorite part was when Batman yelled at Green Goblin for farting.
No, but there are copyleft licenses that require anyone using a fork of some open-source project for for-profit purposes to subsequently open-source any changes they make.
Most of the comments here are talking about the x% of time Linux gets messed up it can be really intimidating for new users and getting the right help can be a challenge, or simply more time than it's worth.
I think this is true, but I think there's another thing that irks people:
Software Compatibility
The general public primarily interacts with their computers through established applications that commonly aren't available on Linux w/o intimidating work around (if at all).
A noob who switches to Linux isn't going to know the limitations up front, and the second they decide they want to learn Adobe Premier for work, they're kinda fucked. They'll either spend hours/days of online research trying to figure out if it's even possible, or they'll ask for help only to have someone tell them they're wrong for trying and to use some FOSS alternative because Adobe is an evil megacorp.
It's a recipe for frustration.
Best way to address this is to reword a bit:
Using "not" twice in a single sentence is generally something worth avoiding IMO.