Senal

Non standard actions in response to stressors is a known possibility with some neurodivergent diagnoses.

Calm responses to subjectively large issues or dangerous situations as well as subjectively oversized reactions to seemingly normal stimuli (sound being a common example).

I get the impression that's supposed to be some kind of gotcha, kinda seems like projection though.

If you don't want to (or feel like you can't) engage on a point, no one is forcing you, it says enough that this is your response.

Just like with police. A minority of bad cops give all cops a bad name.

Except motorcyclists aren't an inherent part of a purposely oppressive system that routinely does horrific things as a core part of its working.

If a motorcyclist calls another out for bad behavior they don't (usually) have to risk their life and livelihood to do so.

ACAB comes from the idea that it's not possible to remain in that group as a subjectively good person.

I get it, you hate motorcyclists, possibly for good reason but the idea that a genuine equivalence exists between them and police is absurd.

It isn't and this is the one of many replies in which you haven't provided even a single example.

This is because you can't provide something that doesn't exist.

Even if your reading comprehension was at such a level as to genuinely think there was an example of what you are saying in that text, you'd provide it.

I can't see a scenario where you aren't trolling for engagement.

I expect some personal attacks, continued feigned ignorance, perhaps some bargain basement deflection , all very standard and boring and that's OK, if that's your skill ceiling i won't hold it against you.

But.. i'm willing to be surprised if you have something novel, perhaps some obscure fallacy I’ll have to look up, something that sets you apart from the basement dweller trolls, something noteworthy, perhaps enough to get you elevated to troll management?

You got this, i believe in you.

Also, i'll save you some time , a reply that doesn't contain a quotable example of what you've claimed will just be ignored, no more engagement for you.

citation?

A single example is fine, i can't find any, but perhaps i'm missing something important.

Cauterisation with extremely hot metal works to seal a wound (and as far as upfront costs go, is cheaper).

Doesn't mean modern medical care isn't the preference.

People are people, manage your expectations accordingly.

These kinds of federated services were never meant to be better than reddit in a content sense, all they do is provide a system in which the possibility of a subjectively better platform was possible.

More simply, federated services are about federation/decentralisation.

The idiomatic solution to the problem you're describing is either to:

start your own federated instance, with the prerequisite amount of hookers and blackjack, but also sufficient rules and moderational enforcement to adhere to your expectations of what a better reddit looks like.

or

find an instance that already does this and join it.

This is a thing that is possible in a federated service, which is the actual difference between reddit and lemmy/piefed etc

smug prick.

I was going for sarcasm, but i can see the interpretational difference.

I suppose game recognises game.

"On this site, they are one and the same." sounds like something a condescending, smug prick might say as an opener.

but by all means, tell me more about what everyone on this public forum thinks.

TL;DR;

Sounds like a bunch of organisational issues using licensing as a scapegoat.

Again, not giving an opinion on FOSS licencing pro's and cons, just on the implementation of licensing in general.

My issue with viral licensing is that it means you got to rewrite the code or use another product.

Or...comply with the licence.

but yes, that's entirely the intention of a licence.

You can use this thing as long as you adhere to the rules set forth, if you don't want to then feel free to create your own or find something with a licence more to your liking.

They aren't forcing this on you, using these products is optional.

Also software bom is a hassle.

Absolutely.

However, that feels more like a procurement/evaluation issue.

e.g : "is bringing in this open source, viral GPL audio processing library worth the trade-off of dealing with the compliance vs paying money for a similar commercial product (or building our own)"

Some advanced manufacturing techniques rely on advanced software. So does infrastructure which is often only secured by obscurity. Also all software is filled with vulnerabilities which can get easier to exploit if you have access to the source code.

That sounds again like a person or persons have royally fucked up their evaluation/procurement duties when selecting the components to use in the building of the product a, quality/security/systems design issue rather than a licensing one.

if complying with an open source license causes a product to become a danger to the public, many people, at many stages, have utterly failed to do their job.

Also,i'm sure you know this, but security through obscurity is a poor systems design choice in almost all scenarios.

As you say though, it does happen in the real world.

In those cases someone needs to wear the grown up hat and evaluate the options available, such as removing or replacing the component that requires opening up your source code, or evaluating the trade off of how severe a risk opening up the source code is vs the costs involved in replacing it, or even the potential legal liability of just ignoring the licence.

If you can't afford any options then your product isn't viable ( in an "everybody follows the rules" kind of scenario, at least).

Im not expressing an opinion on the viral nature of the licence itself, nor the pros and cons of FOSS, nor am I a FOSS evangelist of any kind.

But you understand it's optional right? if you don't like it, don't use it.

This isn't some gotcha, you can literally decide not to use the thing under the licence you don't like. That will solve 100% of the problems you are describing (though it sounds like it'd introduce new, non-licence based problems in whatever example you are thinking of)

Well... I say that, but im actually not sure what you mean by "dangerous to the public", if you could go in to a bit more detail about what you mean there, I'd appreciate it

You mean to say that people on this site are claiming that individuals with publicly stated agendas and goals might possibly use the fiscal and/or reputational benefits of the organisations they control to aid in the furthering of whatever goals/agendas they may have?

Point me in their direction, i shall have words...big ones...like wherewithal ...or extrapolation....prestidigitation...etc.

Clearly these people are buttering their toast with a teaspoon, seems like an incredible leap to me and i bet they couldn't even provide a single example of this happening in the modern day.....illogical plebeians.

Edit : more salt that I'd expect for zero actual counterpoints

I see what you mean and for jobs where deceit isn't an asset it's probably not a great idea to get caught lying.

I will say though, having been employed, the ability to "gracefully massage" the truth is an invaluable skill in a lot of workplaces.