It’s even directly contrary to the statements from the board and the new CEO, and there is no reason to believe they would lie and keep it hidden if this was in fact their reasoning.

Basically didn’t he just raise money with promises of features, then go to the underlying libs authors with a “you should do all these features for free, so I can argue why all the money I got for them was with it” while doing shit-all himself?

So, basically he’s rounding off his attempt at fundraising on trying to get someone else to do the actual work for free with a “I’m sorry, but I’m keeping the money and not delivering anything”?

> What was left to do?

> Integration with a low-level HTTP library ready for the task.

You mean literally all the actual work to make the product do anything useful…

No one took issue with requests, just being a thin usability interface on top of other peoples work, because it was free and open source and didn’t raise funds to provide the claimed functionality. But the second you start raising funds and don’t want to spend a single dollar on the people who do all of the real work, your a pos, and deserve all the criticism. The second you take the money but bail on the project because others won’t do the work for free for you, you become a con-man.

Could you point to the difference you believe is important? What on earth is “heavily engineered” supposed to mean in the context of mRNA?

I’ve always said that I find it wrong that someone who dedicated their life to finding a cure for a life threatening desease is told: “You get 20 years to turn a profit, then it’s a free for all” yet if someone draws a cute mouse we say: “You get your lifetime, plus 75 years of exclusivity then it’s a gray zone case of which derivatives you own and what you can sue for” (looking at Winnie the Pooh’s red shirt).

You’d think that drawings and written content would be ranked lower than literally curing life threatening deseases and saving lives, when it comes to how long we give the inventors and creators to monetize their creations.

He is a white male who’s in power despite eating toe gunk, while also supporting an environment hostile to woman. He’s in no way a good representation of diversity simply because he’s odd.

> once HHS unilaterally selects a drug for inclusion in the program, its manufacturer is compelled to sign an ‘agreement’ promising to sell the drug to Medicare beneficiaries at whatever ‘fair’ price the agency dictates, which must represent at least a 25% to 60% discount,” the complaint says, calling it “tantamount to extortion.”

The normal people approach to vandalism is to just paint it over and continue your life. These people are gamblers who are spending 250k on a lottery ticket that might not pay out.

I assume you meant to write that you created collabUML 3 years ago, and not accidentally take credit for creating PlantUML itself, which is 14 years old and was created by Arnaud Roques in 2009.

There are also laws that require you to delete customer information. For instance patient data in situations where consent is withdrawn. So either way you can’t rely on “it’s often”. And on the flip side of things the legal requirements you are referring to are typically the audit requirements, which are still better served using audit tables, since it’s not enough to have a “current data” and “data that is currently not active”, since you need logs of who changed the data when, and you can easily run into situations where something is soft deleted, then restored, then soft deleted again.

That’s just not true. You decided to attend class, you are taking up a seat. You count toward the outcome for the class and what you do and don’t do affects the class as a total. If you decide to half ass it, that affects the class. At the end of the year if every student fails. A teacher can’t just go: “but that’s not a problem with the class, that’s an individual problem for each student, the class was perfect they all individually just weren’t good enough”

Sorry, but that’s just not something that the system should be designed to cater for. You either accept the badge and the privilege or you don’t, demanding that anyone must be able to park in disabled parking without a badge because they might secretly be disabled but not want to signal it seems beyond absurd.

I assume strongly that if you phrase the question as “how might your life be worse or better” people will also thing of negative alternatives.

The thing is when you only ask “how might your life be different” people will pull on what they have already thought about and most people have plans and dreams for improvements already in their mind.