I want to believe!

You know the war is lost when the UK decides they want to talk to Russia.

I’m in my 40s and I’m really glad I got into martial arts back in my 20s and kept up with it.

🤣

I’m perfectly calm and nobody is upset here. I’m simply explaining to you that your argument does not make sense. If you want to look at negative sides of the trade-off then come up with some arguments that make logical sense. It’s quite telling that you start making personal attacks when you can’t actually address the points being made.

This is actual research, not some “alternative medicine scam” https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-021-00491-8

Romans were a product of their society.

I genuinely don’t know what you’re arguing anymore, because your logic is completely backwards. You’re blaming the GPL for “enshitification” and bloat, which is utterly nonsensical. The license has fuck all to do with how lean or bloated a piece of software is, that’s a result of developer priorities and corporate roadmaps. The GPL’s entire purpose is to enforce freedom, and a key part of that freedom is the right to fork a project and strip out the bloat yourself if the main version goes off the rails. You then admit that corporate contributions are valuable, but your proposed solution is to letting them keep their work proprietary which is the very thing that accelerates enshitification. You’re arguing that to stop companies from making software worse, we should give them a free pass to take public labor, build their own walled gardens, and contribute nothing back. That’s just corporate apologia that encourages the exact freeloading the GPL was designed to prevent. Your entire point is a self-contradictory mess.

What I’m saying is that you could make an architecture similar to M1 which would have the same benefits of being fast and energy efficient, and slap a tailored Linux distro on top of it that just work out of the box. As a dev, I’d buy a decently built laptop like that in a second.

No, GPL does not force companies to do that. It forces companies to make their source code available. There is zero requirement that it has to be contributed to the original project, nor do the maintainers of the project have to accept changes they don’t want. You’re completely misrepresenting the how GPL works here.

Centralization, bloating, and GPL are all orthogonal concepts that bear no direct relation to each other. A centralized project does not necessarily become bloated, nor does GPL play any role in whether a project is centralized or not.

GPL because abstract freedoms are meaningless. The goal should be to ensure that the code stays open and that corps aren’t freeloading of it.

I’m really amazed that it’s been half a decade now and nobody has made a comparable SoC using ARM or RISCV tailored to Linux.

Yeah, Russia should’ve just let the ethnic cleansing in Donbas continue. At lest you fascists have consistent values from Gaza to Donbas.

Frankly, I’ve never really understood the logic of bailouts. If a company is not solvent, but it’s deemed to be strategically important then the government should simply be taking a stake in it. That’s what would happen on the private markets with another company buying it out. The whole notion that the government should just throw money at the failing companies with no strings attached is beyond absurd.

Completely agree, MacOS is turning into a dumpster fire. They keep adding features nobody asked for, and making the whole thing more bloated and flaky in the process.

MS ended support for it, so it won’t get security updates or fixes going forward.

ah makes sense

China has an actual carbon neutral plan, and short term use of coal is part of that. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chinas-energy-transition-in-5-charts/

A study showed that China’s use of coal is perfectly in line with their targets https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds

the key bit of the article

China is now making more money from exporting green technology than America makes from exporting fossil fuels. This trend will continue simply because renewables are cheap; if you doubt the appeal, count the solar panels on Pakistani roofs. The work China does on cutting emissions at home—ever cheaper renewables, more abundant storage which makes those renewables more useful, better electricity markets, long transmission lines and all sorts of associated expertise—will thus be increasingly relevant, and sellable, beyond its borders.