French, oublier: "to forget" or "to loose". Also a medieval torture device. Look it up at your own risk.
ToxicWaste
joined 1 year ago
Additionally I would recommend running Eset on your phone. The free tier allows to scan apps.
https://bestforandroid.com/apk/spotify-premium-mod-apk/
Just create a fake account with 10 minute mail or something similar. On my desktop i use the web-app with ad muting extension. Works rather well.
Friend of mine bought her first smart phone about a year ago. She just didn't need any of the functions on a smartphone and was happier with her flip phone: pretty much infinite battery, near indestructible, does communicate just ok.
Only reason she bought a smart phone is to download some group chat clients. Since she broke up with her BF, we additionally had to write her on SMS. So she made it a bit easier for us.
The government needs to take over things which are not viable for the private sector, but important for society to work.
Lets say privatisation of public transport: In countries where it is completely private, only major cities have reasonable connections. Because those are the most profitable ones. But if you want people to actually use public transport, you need to have a fine and widely spread net of connections. For that to happen either the state completely owns the public transport, or takes off financial pressure and only partially owns it.
Exactly this mechanism enables (partially) state owned organizations to run suboptimal. As explained in the example, this is a desired effect. But it also enables memes like the lazy state employee - which are at least partially true.
Isn't possible now.
As someone who uses LLMs at work, i can tell you that they are a tool. You have to learn how to use them and what its limitations are.
A good friend of mine who is a teacher, tells me it is really obvious if one of his students uses AI for their homework. Not much difference as when they would pay one of the smarter kids to do it for them.
Different technology but the same discussion as when ppl where afraid, that Wikipedia will write the kids homework...
I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:
Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources." Which FUTO does - they won't allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult task...
If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: "Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.", Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: "{...}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {...}", you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.
Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: "An open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code." These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.
To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.
I don't know about the laws where you live. But here it is legal to make 'security copies' of any medium you bought. If you have to crack some kind of protection, that is an inconvenience.
You are just not allowed to distribute any copies without the proper license.