kazagistar

Thats wrong too. If you use an unmodified version of AGPL software, or just host any modifications in a public repository like github, then you aren't in violation of AGPL, even if the rest of your stack is proprietary and your service paid. How does it prevent SaaS?

Side note: In an open office, people quickly learn to cheat and claim unused spaces like conference rooms for working undisturbed.

The people forced another election, and elected his party MAS (movement towards socialism) more overwhelmingly then they elected Evo Morales in the election last year where he was couped.

On the other hand, MAS intends to exploit its lithium. It just plans to do that in a way that grows a high tech domestic industry instead of just exporting raw product. They also plan to keep the profits local to fund social programs and such, which rubs the neoliberal free market imperialists like American foreign policy goons the wrong way.

All the first world countries already despoiled and continue to despoil the resources of the world at an alarming rate. They owe a debt, and this is asking them to pay that debt to those who haven't done so.

There is room for many types, and when it comes to more traditional storytelling, games can create more direct emotional connections by making you the character, rather then the protagonist just being someone you watch.

Critical race theory is so obvious its just boring. The boogeyman the right makes out of it just feels dumb.

Also, work to increase the democraticness of institutions in your country so that it may be changed in the future, and work to change people's thoughts on matters so they grow the will to change things.

The fact that the consequences are cleansed away makes it not remotely historical. You aren't playing a subset of history, you are playing a subset of propaganda.

Whats the point of setting it in a real war with real consequences if you are just going to erase all those realities? So many games seem set up so people can play war without consequences, but if you do that at least do it in a setting where you aren't insulting the real victims.

Monopolies (or even high concentrations) of power are bad, whether that's financial or legal or whatever. However, democratization can redistribute that power back amongst the people. The goal should be to work towards nearly even power, which prevents the abuses in power. If the government was controlled by the people, its "monopoly" wouldn't really be one, because it couldn't be abused by those who wield power within it.

The DNC doesn't have full throated machinery to win. They are specialized in losing and conceding ground. Their "machinery" is a huge number of corporations grifting a profit. They have lots of funds, but they also have lots of pockets to grease just to get some ads out or promote a few tweets or pay an army of strategic consultants that are paid massive salaries despite only having lost races.

The USA had exactly such laws, before they were struck down in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in the landmark case Citizens United. The reasoning was that the right to free speech was protected at all scales and all categories absolutely, and thusvspending any amount on any political speech like buying ads was protected. The only way for such a law to pass now would be to either have the Supreme Court overturn this decision (unlikely, its still recent) or to change the constitution to specify political speech spending as unprotected by the right to free speech, which is even less likely given the supermajority needed, the natural conflict of interests with the entire existing political class, and thr sacredness with which the American people view the constitution, and that part of the document specifically.

I personally think Citizens United is the worst thing to ever happen to democracy, but I fear a revolution after a prolonged slide into deep oligarchy might be the only way it ever changes.

I meant the plan of "stop emitting carbon, even if it hurts the economy".

Does that mean the finite duration of a black hole to an outside observer prior to its evaporation corresponds to an infinite duration of an observer within the black hole?

They would exit as a stream of extremely small and infrequent particles over billions or even trillions of years, depending on the size of the black hole, in most cases ending once all the stars have died and universal expansion has emptied out almost all of the accessible universe.

There are plenty. They are only unrealistic when people belive them to be unrealistic.

Thats fine, you can work to support non mainstream ones, or failing that, there are riots to join,

Christmas isn't an inherent human feature.

Not that I am in any way a fan of anprim thinking, but anyone with massive vested interest in the perpetuation of present day power dynamics (eg massive wealth) has negative starting authority when it comes to evaluating the quality of that world and the value of its preservation.

Privilege is something good, unequally (and/or unjustly) distributed. Rights are something good that should be afforded to everyone. So there is a lot of overlap but also distinction.

Rights are an ideal, privileges are a material reality.

What is the proof that one party did it against the will of the people, while the other went with the will of the people? Given how much ongoing violence was continued and expanded even once the democrats has a president and congressional majority, it seems like both parties were and are happy to perpetuate imperialist violence in the name of a fictional protection.

The purpose of many opinions is to gather support for some kind of sociopolitical state, and changes or maintenence of the political status quo cause harm or maintain harm respectively. For example, if I lived in 1800 and stated the opinion that "black people deserve equal rights", it would be dangerous to and greatly financially threatening to southern landowners. The added effect of these opinions would be proven out by history. And while that opinion would turn out to help far more then it harms, other opinions like "jews undermined our army in the great war" would turn out disastrous. I would say that opinions are some of the greatest powers in the world, and calling them harmless is dishonest.

Individuals might have the right to disassociate, but organizations have more power then individuals, and concentrate power in the hands of a small number of people, and thus should have some democratic checks on that power. Elections are one form of democratic check on power, but a randomized selection of peers works as a statistically sampled approximation, which is why the concept of a jury exists.

Any organization without democratic checks to redistribute power to its constituents is generally seeking to hold hierarchical power over those constituents and others, and should be distrusted.

Dehumanization and essentialism are dangerous ideas to be considered carefully. Have you considered that those people might be most people if in the right circumstances?

You can't go to the police for someone making racist or sensitive insults. The problem isn't the CoC concept, because there exists a domain of actions that strictly speaking are legal but warrent expulsion from a professional community. The problem here is gross overreach and power without democratic control.

The speed bump in option 2 isn't that big of a worry, right? Its the classic sotuation of once you are big enough to habe the problem, you are big enough to afford to solve it.

Progressive free speech? Megacorporarions cannot censor, but people on their lawn can? Everyone uses the "would you like it if you couldn't censor your local coffee shop from nazis" or whatever example, but that intentionally ignores power dynamics that can be accounted for. Censorship's moral hazard against democracy only really comes into play at scale, so we can provide protection accordingly.

It makes the most sense to me to default to immutable, but swap to mutable when appropriate.

Pure functional languages, aka Haskell or Idris or whatever, don't have this property. A closure closes over values, and thus is a value, no state mutation involved.

Of course, your point about complex mechanisms to reintroduce mutation into specific contexts stands (usually via monads) but those are a very different Kind of object then the functions.

For me its easy: haskell was cool for more obvious reasons but a bit much, and rust felt like an interesting yet practical very strongly typed language.