Wrong. Poor people have 0 problems having kids.

People can afford kids, they don't want to compromise on lifestyle.

No it can't, you are right.

By default, you don't have any right to use any given software. The license outlines the conditions under which you have are permitted to use it. If you don't comply with the conditions, you aren't permitted to use it.

The license isn't ordering you to do anything, you can simply not use the software!

Businesses do not pay taxes on revenue, they pay taxes on profit.

Other taxes may be applicable though (such as VAT or sales taxes).

That's not a burden, it's justice.

Do you know what you pay for when you pay Red Hat? Exactly the kind of guarantees people seem to expect from free software. You're not paying for the software, you're paying for the contractual support relationship. If you're updating your RHEL server through the channels you are paying for, you'd absolutely be able to sue Red Hat if they were distributing compromised software.

The cost matters. No one's taking on legal liability free of charge.

You can't expect any guarantees of fitness for purpose, safety or whatever if you're getting something for free. The moment you pay though, things change and licenses can't absolve you from everything.

"Here's a free car on a parking lot. You can take it if you want it for free. The car hasn't been inspected and there are no guarantees that it's road-worthy".

I think this is perfectly acceptable in most countries and I doubt you'd have any standing to sue if the car turns out to have safety issues.

Blindly pulling updates from providers that offer you no contractual guarantees has to be gross negligence right?

The risk with OpenClaw et al isn't that the software itself is compromised. The risk is that what it does is fundamentally insecure and Claude Code isn't any better

It's used exactly as you say: a shared context used as input for the signature that is not transmitted.

They were able to yet didn't because doing it was sure to provoke a response. In fact if Iran acted first to close the strait it would surely have pulled in all of the European powers.

The only reason they clode the strait is because the US struck first so they had nothing to lose anymore.

"Securing the strait" is completely incoherent as an objective for this war.

You mean the strait that was perfectly secure before this war? Amazing objective.

"Dismantle the regime" is the only objective that is coherent with what the US did and it's very unlikely they'll achieve it at this point.

If losing your job means you can't afford buying presents, isn't it good to know your job is at risk?

Better than buying presents and then getting fired right?

When someone is fired, they generally stop working immediately while getting paid through the notice period.

They are absolutely not innocent. They have agency!

They decided ruining other people's life is better than whatever the consequences are for themselves.

It's only normal that people they target retaliate.

Doing crime to save your own life does not excuse the crime.

They're attemtping to ruin someone else's life to save their own.