Is the free choice of content selection algorithm free speech? Isn't the speech, the content, there either way, and could be selected through other alternative algorithms?
Is using deliberately engaging or addicting design free speech? Isn't the speech, the content, there either way?
They're describing one kind of free proprietary software and company setup. Which is valid. But the title claiming "[all] always ends in tears" isn't supported by that.
My interpretation has always been that it loads [too] many files. File performance on many [small] files is noticeably, significantly slower on Windows than it is on Linux.
threats of commercial retaliation appear to have dampened the resolve
A few days ago I saw an interview with an EU official (I don't remember who) which gave interesting insight.
They pointed out that they're talking with China about these tariffs, that they're taking a proof-based approach on them, reasoning and justifying with evidence of unfair subsidies, and that China has accepted such tariffs in the past for other things.
Collecting and discussing evidence obviously takes more time. But it defuses the "I put tariffs on you" -> "then I put tariffs on you" into a "these unjust subsidies were in place so we have to add these tariffs" -> "I don't like it but I see".
I wonder how those talks turned out, given that the tariffs have now been set. I guess I will hear from China if they object.
we’re currently at 96% completion for the 3.0 RC1 milestone, with 11 issues remaining.
for how long it has been in development, neither 96% nor 11 issues remaining give me confidence in short-term completion.
But given the wording around it, I guess it has to be not too far off - whatever that means. I'm not hopeful about anything, but looking forward to it. GIMP has been my main "heavy" image editing tool for a long time.
All features aside, I hope it will launch faster than previous versions.
The letter alleged that "your blatant and widespread unlicensed use of our Client's trademarks has infringed our Client's rights and confused consumers into believing, falsely, that WP Engine is authorized, endorsed, or sponsored by, or otherwise affiliated or associated with, our Client."
If the trademark is indeed on the wordpress.org foundation and not the wordpress.com company, I didn't think that's a fair argument.
When I think Wordpress I think the software, not their hosting or company. Such an argument would only work if the exclusive trademark licensing were actually exclusively used, and not in addition to the very vast Wordpress [software] ecosystem.
WPEngine using the Wordpress trademark makes me think they're using Wordpress. Not that they are affiliated with Wordpress.com (or automattic that runs it).
I think you make a good point. But the tech doesn't have to formalize or understand the complexities of human relations or state. The platform and environment are something you can shape even without an established or physical community. The way information is presented and interactions happen does influence how people use and communicate. Not reaching the same degree doesn't mean it's a complete failure.
about how Chinese people cope with constant surveillance in their country
Very interesting read.
Finally, wanting to protect privacy was often seen by participants as a desire to hide shameful secrets in order to save face. Here too, surveillance is viewed positively, as a tool to unmask shady behaviours and promote morality.
Damn.
In short, the way the Chinese citizens I spoke to experience digital surveillance is characterized by strong psychic tensions: the same persons who support surveillance as being indispensable in the Chinese context are also and nevertheless expressing the heavy burden that coping with such exposure places on them.
I felt strong aversion and irritation throughout, thinking they were unnecessarily making enemies.
They certainly have an extreme view and goal. And are personally invested to the point of seeing fellow collaborators on FOSS as enemies(?) now.
Putting up barriers through segmentation and alternative tech creates silos. To reach new people I don't think we can get around meeting users where they are and what they are familiar with.
Bring value through FOSS, and hint and nudge them. If you meet them where they are and bring them to your software it's already one more than none. You don't need to get them to make a huge leap into a whole ecosystem of alternative software at once.
Their categorical dismissal of other's opinions or priorities certainly felt irritating to me. Maybe they care more about FOSS license than UX or features, but why is that the only correct view in their eyes? Blind users may not even be able to use FOSS alternatives when they lack accessibility features or quality.
Even as a contributor to a project I don't want to use a supportive side platform only for that when it's annoying or cumbersome. I very well may just skip it, or leave as a contributor.
I would have been interested in the premise; why they think advocating and exclusively FOSS is the only correct view and thing to do. The lack of a strong basis also made all that followed more irritating.
cries in 1 GB apt GitLab update