Skydancer

joined 2 years ago
[–] Skydancer@pawb.social 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Not true.

He can't prevent anyone that received the code under the GPL from using (and distributing it) under the old license. He also can't relicense code that he received under the GPL only under the new license.

If he receives a new license from the other contributors to distribute under a more restrictive license, he can do that because he has a dual license to the code and is not relying on the GPL for his right to distribute.

[–] Skydancer@pawb.social 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Gonna have to disagree with #3 - stopping Vim is not necessary for this. There's the builtin :! command.

[–] Skydancer@pawb.social 1 points 9 months ago

Don't forget /auto, for things that get automatically mounted when you first access them (autofs)

[–] Skydancer@pawb.social 12 points 11 months ago

Not completely ignoring - I assume that was the swipe about "only engages in genocide reluctantly" was about.

Myself, I agree with you that we haven't seen much sign of that reluctance.

[–] Skydancer@pawb.social 22 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Nah. This has happened with every major corporate antivirus product. Multiple times. And the top IT people advising on purchasing decisions know this.

[–] Skydancer@pawb.social 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Skydancer@pawb.social 6 points 1 year ago

Favorite would be a highly customized zsh.

fizsh (not fish) is what I actually end up using, as I can't be bothered to copy that config around and retune it for each machine. Gives me the syntactic sugar of zsh with common default options on by default, an OK default prompt, and doesn't break POSIX assumptions like fish. Also Installs quickly from the package manager without needing to run through the zsh setup each time - unlike oh-my-zsh. And if I still need customization, all the zsh options are still there.

[–] Skydancer@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago

And that assumes no second hand

[–] Skydancer@pawb.social 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Having known multiple trans people and heard them talk about the arguments for and against early disclosure: Fear.

  1. They may not be public about their status, and fear exposure to family or coworkers seeing their public profile.

  2. They may fear harassment from transphobes. This could range from DM accusations of pedophilia to religious screeds to doxxing to death threats.

  3. They may be trying to avoid "chasers." There are some people for whom a trans body (particularly a transfem body) is a fetish, who don't actually care about the person inside. Plenty of transpeople don't appreciate that kind of attention.

  4. Fear of rejection. They may believe that nobody will respond if they're open about not being cis.

Also two less fear-related (and less common) possibilities:

  1. Ideology. To some people, specifying "transman" or "transwoman" reinforces a social distinction they find invalidating or don't accept. How many profiles have you seen that specify themselves as "cisman" or "ciswoman"? For these people, it's a way of rejecting cisgender normativity.

  2. Maybe they just aren't ready to talk about their genitals yet, or have their first conversation be about their surgical plans or history. Not only can get really repetitive having that be the first conversation with every single match, it means they don't get any of the information they're looking for about a potential partner until much later in the process and have to invest a lot of their own time up front. Just like you want the salient information you care about early on, so do they.

view more: ‹ prev next ›