If you like to upload your own music (like Google music), iBroadcast is the tippy tops. You can still use bandcamp (with or without yt-dlp) for discovery, and then upload what you like to iBroadcast.

Ethics are interesting because you can ignore them. It's like, ethics exist within you regardless of whether you agree to them; if you don't listen to that little voice, it gets easier and easier to ignore it. To put that in practical terms: murdering someone is pretty ethically difficult. Murdering a second time is less ethically difficult. It's like we build a climate around ourselves; the more you listen to your ethical beliefs, the more repugnant the idea of ignoring them becomes.

That said, I'm not sure I'm on board with you on RHCP -- but that's maybe just me. I used to listen to them a lot in jr high (I'm old) when blood sugar sex magic had just come out. And while your opinion is totally valid, for me, like, I never thought he was much of an ethical role model. His lyrics are pretty misogynistic. (And, not great regardless, from a "objective artistic/poetic" perspective.) So like yeah he's not a great person, but he never pretended to be, so to find out he isn't doesn't change much.

(As opposed to, say, Jowling Kowling Rowling, who used to talk about hating bigotry, but then turned out to be a super terrible bigot.)

Flea, on the other hand -- I've never looked into him. I'm also a bassist and his influence on my bass education is so deep that I'm afraid to find out if he's toxic lol. But he's been in a band with Anthony Keidis for like 40 years, so, he's probably not perfect.

(I'm not a slap or funk bassist, but what I learned from Flea was how to feel it. You can't play Flea's bass lines mechanically, they literally don't sound correct; you have to feel the vibe, the groove has to move your fingers, not the time signature. That dude, ffs I hope he's not an asshole, because he's fucking incredible.)

Though IDK -- after long careers together, from what I understand, people tend to see each other less.

For example, after the whole Me Too thing started, I heard an interview with Bob Weinstein, Harvey's brother, the two of them started Miramax together and were basically partners. But he knew his brother was a piece of shit, and, at that time a few years ago, hadn't actually spoken to him in "many years." He didn't dwell on the topic, he just said that, basically, and his tone was like, obviously disgusted, but he didn't want to spend the time talking about that, so he didn't.

He wasn't exactly going to snitch his own brother into prison, and that's asking a bit too much imo, but it shows ethical strength to not slip into that same kind of toxicity, especially when it's so close to you, and probably so easy.

ITT: people who didn't click the link. It's in like the very first sentence.

Holy shit that's brutal... And also disgusting.

There are a couple tiny issues I have with it that drive me nuts (namely: 1 how they implement the CSS blur filter sucks and 2 the fact that they haven't implemented page transitions even though I think it was their idea to start with (?))

But other than those things, I certainly don't feel like I'm missing anything by ditching Google.

Obviously you're right. That said, in the universe of Trump's fiction, it tracks (kind of). If the machines were rigged and if the election was stolen, then several things logically follow:

1. Trump's actions to retain power were not only justified, but also imperative, and very much within the scope of his duties as president, since he's the executive branch; while DOJ might normally handle the day to day, a stolen election is a big deal, and it makes sense he would step in. And therefore he would be immune to prosecution for any "law breaking."

2. If you're a superhero cop - not an actual, fat ass fascist bastard cop we have irl, but the kind of cop TV says is what cops are like, you don't have time for subpoenas and warrants -- you break down the doors and you grab the evidence. Maybe you're not even sure if there's a crime, but you can't risk it -- and if you're president, you can argue there's room for "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" in that context.

3. If you're not sure whether there's been a crime but there's a massive time pressure and extremely high stakes (as would be the case if the election was actually stolen), you would need to act as if there was a crime, since the consequences if there isn't pale in comparison to the consequences if there is. So: if you are the head of the executive branch, and you are concerned that there's a crime of that magnitude, you could easily make the case that you are duty bound to investigate.

4. So, the situation is this: if you investigate, and there's a crime, you've saved the world; if you investigate and there is no crime, then you will go to jail for it. That's a bit unfair -- so, a warning that, if you investigate this and there's no crime, then you're going to jail, might've been called for.

So -- if Trump was able to produce even a single piece of evidence to support his claims, the fiction he's established on top of them is arguable, and, if you start to look at his cases through that lens, his absurd motions and arguments kind of make sense.

Voting with your wallet is literally plutocracy -- those with more dollars get more votes.

Not only is our theoretically bad, but it's practically bad: the impact of a boycott is negligible, but the impact on the people doing the boycott is huge: not having access to the conveniences everyone else has puts us at a significant disadvantage compared to our peers.

And finally, it's not just practically bad, it's actually contraindicated. The executives of a corporation are legally required to maximize immediate returns to their investors. It's literally illegal for a CEO to move a company in the direction of civic responsibility over profit. And it's not just "profit" -- it has to be increasing profit. Line has to go up; they can't just keep it flat, even if "flat" is hugely profitable. To withdraw our financial support will just cause them to squeeze harder on everyone else.

(There's an argument that there might be more profit in social responsibility, but unless you have numbers to back that up, and it demonstrates immediate returns in addition to long term benefits, then it's just a guess, and a guess is never going to be more convincing to shareholders than facts.)

The only way to change this is with regulation, and a cultural shift away from "line goes up" mentality. And you can't effect political change when you're spend 3x as long making dinner because you're boycotting processed food.

Suggesting that we just give up all the conveniences that our labor, our creativity, and our cultural contributions have enabled, for the sake of convincing a CEO to be nicer is just ineffectual.

This is digging into pretty legal territory and copyright law is (arguably unnecessarily) complex -- but licenses are things that you use to let people use your patents. I think that's what they were initially and mainly; but then software and the copyleft movements kind of detached the concepts of licenses and patents.

The fediverse protocols could definitely be patented and licensed, but, like you said (or implied, really), that's... sketchy af. Like, anyone we could trust to patent it would probably refuse to do it -- Linux Torvalds would probably curse me out for even suggesting it, and the lecture rms gave me would probably never end.

WE GOT BALLISTAE FOR YOU TOO, BUDDY

All of this. The reason why the "trans debate" is so problematic is because of the "debate" part. I don't give a shit about whether gender is a performance or a genetic thing - i care that trans people are murdered at an alarming rate, and that their rights to health care are significantly under threat - or gone already. My concern is that trans and gay people still have to worry about their safety when they come out of the closet.

I care about providing safety and normal human treatment for people who aren't getting it.

The "debates" can happen after these people stop being murdered and abused. You can tell me all about your religious doctrines and how god made Adam and Eve or whatever after we agree that humans need to be treated like humans.

Imo "scammer" is the wrong word. "Hustler" is more accurate in my experience.

Under certain circumstances, those iFixit places are exactly what it says on the tin - but if rent's coming up and they haven't had many walk ins, you might end up with a new Flux Capacitor in your JavaScript Microlibrary, since the old one looks like it started sending unhandled exceptions to the teraflop reader - but don't worry, they put in a new 6-charge teraflop reader that should future proof it for years.

I keep trying to find a way to play with a web dev stack that doesn't involve JavaScript, but I think that might be a pipe dream...