But on the other, in arguably trying to address the problems, the anti-Collabora side seems to exhibit a distressing lack of honor and decency. The dismissal of voting results that didn't go their way, the malicious misreadings of member votes against their proposals (eg, deciding "If the Board majority group insists on proceeding with this misguided and premature motion, I vote NO" was not a vote against the proposal because the motion was "neither misguided nor premature"), the arguments that complaints about their behavior violate community standards and are are not sufficiently respectful of the work they do, the toxic, patronizing, dismissive statements toward developers and others... even if they are right, I do not understand why they need to behave the way they are behaving.

In similar behavior, one of the votes against the community bylaws that seem to have resulted resulted in the expulsions was "If the Board majority group insists on proceeding with this misguided and premature motion, I vote NO". Those in favor decided that the vote was conditional and not valid, because "this motion is neither misguided nor premature". They then proceeded to tell others complaining about the decision that they were violating community standards in doing so.

As far as I can tell, the invalidated vote made no difference to the outcome; it is difficult for me see a legitimate motivation for the interpretation of the vote.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/10/oracle-want... [2]: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council_Log_20101... [3]: https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2026/04/01/comment-...

Doesn't the AGPL specifically disallow that? If I understand correctly, the FSF has even directly threatened legal action against developers who add extra restrictions to the AGPL. The license text is copyrighted, does not allow modifications, and includes terms allowing the user to ignore any additional restrictions, so adding extra restrictions would seem to either be ineffective or a copyright violation.

Short of clearing context, it is difficult to escape from this situation, and worse, the tendency for the model to put explanatory comments in code and writing means that it often writes code, or presents data, that is correct, but then attaches completely bogus scientific babbling to it, which, if not removed, can infect cleared contexts.

Consider that this is a journal whose scope is defined not by field, but by funding initiatives. It places an astoundingly small emphasis on making research visible: contrasted with most major journals, with websites that might be split between research articles proper and editorial articles, but are still heavily focused on presenting articles, Open Research Europe doesn't have a single non-truncated article title on its front page, and devotes the vast majority of the page to journal administration and self-advertisement. The current lead highlight of PNAS is a section of rotating blurbs about articles, both research and editorial, for example. The current highlight of Open Research Europe is a description of Open Research Europe and logos of associated groups, including a second copy of the European Commission logo, in addition to the one on the top of the page. For that matter, the journal has a three-letter domain name, ore.eu, that it uses entirely to talk about itself, with only a single, small, text link to the journal itself. Why publish at a journal where your research seems to be far down their list of priorities?

With that said, I'm hopeful that CERN taking this over is a good sign. Zenodo is a great asset to the research community, and I feel like CERN is better situated to understand what will make a journal where researchers will want to publish. And I'd note, unlike Open Research Europe, Zenodo's front page is primarily a list of recent uploads, complete with partial abstracts.

>Researchers are themselves responsible for typesetting, advertising, etc. This and removing for-profit stakeholders can reduce the costs a lot.

That can depend on how the proceedings are published. Dagstuhl Publishing, for example, does do some typesetting and proofreading work for proceedings they publish, they just have it arranged in an extremely efficient way (everyone submits LaTeX using their class, so they're mostly fixing mistakes). They also do charge (an extremely small) publishing fee to the conference.

Mozilla certainly won’t spend it on Firefox, because the structure of the organization legally prohibits them from spending any of their donation money on Firefox. The ‘side projects’ are, at least officially, the real purpose of Mozilla.

It was a public lot, and the only lot in the town, as far as we could tell.

The secret ballot perhaps made a particular type of election fraud, the kind done by dedicated partisans voting multiple times themselves, theoretically easier. But it removed the mechanics that allowed far more prevalent and lucrative election fraud. In the Tammany Hall era, you could buy votes and know that your paid voters actually voted the way you wanted. You could promise that your preferred candidates, if elected, would give rewards only to people who voted for them, and actually follow through with that promise. You could physically prevent people from voting with ballots that weren't yours, rather than trying to rely on demographics.

There's also the matter that, ethically, openprovider seems to be heavily focusing on domain name speculators as clients; that may be a business many people would not want to support, and their services for people actually using their domains may be poor.

The text of the bill suggests that it would make printers capable of being reflashed with an open source firmware illegal to sell, as the legal requirements for the blocking would include preventing it from being circumvented. The law would also make having a printer sold mail-order into the state illegal entirely. It’s not clear how parts-built machines like Vorons would be handled.

It appears to only cover sales, however. Possession of files for firearm components would be made illegal, but seemingly not a printer without the restrictions.

There also isn't really any detriment. At worst, the sniper is making the same bid they would have made otherwise. If the opposing bidders are not purely rational, and have not put in their actual maximum bid, then sniping can deprive them of that opportunity and thus lowers the hammer price.

And bidders are not purely rational, especially when the items are not purely utilitarian. Getting notifications that you have been outbid has an emotional effect, as does having time to think about raising the bid.

eBay really seems to be the only auctioneer using the snipable process it uses.

My university, for example, is gradually removing all office phones (already voip) and replacing them with Teams voip as the only phone system for the university, encouraging personal phone use of Teams, but having computer-based use as the option for people who refuse. As they don't provide mobile phones, however, they can't require Microsoft Authenticator, and so at least officially will still give hardware keys on request (and fortunately still allow TOTP, even if they don't advertise it).

One might argue that there, many of the processing choices are being made by the film manufacturer, in the sensitizing dyes being used, etc.

You have layers of substrate with silver halides, made sensitive to different frequency ranges with sensitizing dyes, crystallized into silver halide crystals, rather than a regular grid of pixels; you take a photo that is not an image, but a collection of specks of metallic silver. Through a series of chemical reactions, you develop those specks. Differences in chemistry, in temperatures, in agitation, in the film, all affect what for digital images is described as processing. Then in printing, you have a similar process all over again.

If anything, one might argue that the digital process allows a more consistent and quantitative understanding of the actual processing being done. Analog film seems like it involves less processing only because, for most people, the processing was always a black box of sending off the film for development and printing.

I'd prefer not to go into extensive detail, but I was once a passenger involved in a shipwreck where I did not trust the crew or the country we were in, and it was a somewhat similar situation of needing to get off the ship immediately, with the implication that everything should be left behind.

Disregarding that and instead grabbing my small backpack with a satellite phone and cell phone, a GPS system and camera, my passport, a jacket, and similar items was, in hindsight, a very good decision. Without that bag, we would have been in a very sketchy situation, entirely under the control of the crew and shipowner, in a corrupt country where the shipowner was well-connected.

Depending on the situation, it's not necessarily a matter of compensation for expensive possessions. Do you have any means of outside communication that isn't controlled by a group that might not have your best interests in mind? Do you have any alternative (eg, communication, documentation, or means of payment) if they decide to make your treatment dependent on what you are willing to sign, or if they decide to simply abandon you, or worse? Even during the emergency itself: is the emergency equipment that is supposed to be there going to be there? Is it going to be functional? Do you trust the crew to actually help you?

With all that said: going for an overhead bag in an emergency on a plane is ridiculous and dangerous; if something is so critical, it would make more sense to have it in a pocket (to be fully compliant), or at least immediately accessible in a small bag.