• 0 Posts
  • 74 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 9th, 2023

help-circle


  • To me that seems like a demonstration of why it would work. Allowing the people living there to buy the house from the government moved housing from the hands of government into private ownership. Allowing the people living there to buy the home from a corporate landlord will remove housing from corporate landlords, which is exactly what’s needed if we want people to be able to afford housing. People buying the home they live in from their landlord won’t remove council housing.

    It’ll probably drive down house prices but that’s kind of the point. As a private homeowner I’d lose out on some potential money if I ever moved so that’s not ideal, but that’s a fair “loss” if it means other people can afford somewhere to live.






  • Have you considered events from their perspective? From what you’ve described, they were told to wait until a notification was sent, then they were given a notification with the instruction “send this”. If it was me my first thought would absolutely be that that’s the notification to be sent, the only reason I’d hesitate is because those sort of communications are well outside my job description.

    The reason they sent the product afterwards is obvious; they were told to send them after the notification was sent, and they had sent the notification.

    From what you’ve described, you are communicating incredibly poorly then blaming your workers for misunderstanding.



  • You’re entirely missing the point; you are under no obligation to follow the rules for a licence you did not agree to. The CC licence restrictions apply only to those who use that licence to use your work.

    I licence a work to Alice for display in one commercial location only. I licence the same work to Bob for display non-commercially, who then displays it in a different location. Charlie has no licence, but reproduces part of the work using fair use doctrine as part of a paid review. Alice’s use breaches Bob’s licence; Alice did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Bob’s use breaches Alice’s licence; Bob did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Charlie’s use breaches both licences; Charlie does not need a licence at all so is not in breach of copyright.


  • By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant.

    It says it right there in plain English, it only grants copyright permission where they need your permission anyway. The restrictions are to the additional rights you grant, it does not revoke other parties’ already existing rights unless they invoke this licence to use your work. The licence does not restrict commercial use for people not invoking the licence. It’s incredibly unlikely anyone “fears” you giving them more rights.

    If you keep hearing the same arguments maybe you should consider what they’re saying instead of instantly dismissing them as astroturfers for disagreeing with you? Do any of them actually complain about the fact you’re licencing your content or are they complaining that you’re saying the licence does something it does not do?

    As for “what business it is” of mine; this is a public forum. If you’re not ready to defend yourself don’t spread misinformation.



  • Blaming the people taking the loans is kind of absurd, for many it’s their only option if they want to continue their education. It’s not like they’re taking out loans they don’t need and burning the money.

    “Legally-binding contract” is meaningless too, would you make the same argument against people who signed away their lives before slavery was abolished? Just because it’s legal now doesn’t mean it always will be, or that it must be enforced indefinitely.

    You’re absolutely right that reducing tuition is the right move. Tuition is free where I am and some of the costs I see elsewhere are crazy. However, the options are not necessarily mutually exclusive; you can reduce tuition and help people that have already been shafted by the existing system.






  • A keyboard without tactile feedback is objectively worse than a keyboard with tactile feedback, excluding other factors.

    I’ve never had a physical keyboard lag out then send an entirely different keystroke because it thought I held a button, or send a single keystroke because I was typing too quickly.

    I’ve never had to wait a moment for a physical keyboard to show up after selecting a text box.

    I’ve never had the entire layout of a page shift to make room for a physical keyboard whenever I select or deselect a text box.

    I’ve never had a physical keyboard prevent me from using the number pad and force me to use the full keyboard (or worse, vice versa) because of an improperly configured input box.

    The way I see it there are exactly two real benefits to integrating a software keyboard into a touchscreen: reduced physical complexity (the entire device is essentially just one screen), and easier access to emoji. A touchscreen keyboard performs far worse as a keyboard. It’s a valid trade-off for a small mobile device, but it’s not objectively better.