(But I'd concede that in the field of genocide China doesn't come up as bad)

The way I read your response is "you must buy my X, otherwise you're negatively impacting me already" and it's something turned on its head.

So if you're a developer of OSS and released something that _already has inflicted_ a measurable negative outcome for me -- that's okay.

But if I in response say "I don't like, I'm going to fork and use that software without that feature" -- that's a threat to the dev?

I'd say it's very much double standards, especially since in that case the negative action in the original software has already happened and is already negatively impacting the people considering the fork.

And you're saying that them, by wanting to cease it, are the bad guys.

"a competing product", perhaps for these pissed with the deb's human skills or those who want to use it in the unique environment he refuses them to adapt them to, contrary to his own licence?

No, seriously, intimidation? "Your position is untenable for us, we'll find another way forward" is a "let's agree to disagree", not more.

Where did you get your public relations skills? In the school for ants?

Why don't you just ask someone who understands the _whole_ of the original issue instead of _mathematically proving_ we're just stupid?

If you're talking for HA - you guys are undoing _a lot_ of goodwill under this one post and it's interesting you either don't see it or don't care.

I avoided HA due to some technical issues published and the further development, but that quote absolutely cemented the decision in me:

> It made me decide to request for complete removal. > I suggest you honor that request and sit on your wounds.

What a.... colourful persona! I wonder if he was alluding to the potential and baseless C&D request or his opinion that one person's wish revokes MIT licence just because.

But..... That's quite painful to read.

I would give them the benefit of the doubt but it's pretty clear from the initial response on github that privacy or security decisions of users do not matter much.

By suggesting that 1Password is doing the same you're lying to water down the gross abuse of trust.

"my replies were dismissive" non-apology after the initial "This issue is closed as won't fix." show pretty clear you're simply in the damage control mode, actually either not understanding or not caring why someone caring about security or privacy would be shocked and request opt-in you flatly rejected anyway.

Thanks!

(English is not my first language)

> new policy will not apply to gear that operates exclusively on amateur radio frequencies

So almost everything is getting banned, at least the existing hardware.

I'd rather have my kids use e2ee apps and be smart about it than have them ignorant with false sense of security and lured into some 3rd party adhoc web chat server.

You wouldn't?

Read: write your PR. It doesn't say "do not contribute code touched by LLM".

It asks to take accountability for the thing you submit.

Technical output written by LLM is often very hard to read due to the ticks, fillers, fluff and idiosyncrasies. Even with rules or guidance.

This contribution rule ensures crap will be edited out and only the valuable content submitted. Cleaned up LLM code can be very valuable.

Did I slept through the ban of the entire categories of literature, much of the content in the mainstream movies and TV, or - gasp, all the porn?

Seems weird to target one particular segment of the entertainment but not, say, explicit VR erotica or games.

(my comment reflects my opinion on this particular "my software sexts me and vendor says it's okay", and not my trust in Meta or rather lack of thereof)

Bringing six URLs with some examples and opinions (some as valuable as your own) when called off is not evidence, it's trolling.

I don't need to seek reasons to disregard your arguments because they're baseless. You decided to claim the indefensible and I decided I'm not going to allow changing the goalpost, from the "every thread of every project" into unpicking of random links.

LOL, why would I? Unless they're an evidence to your claim (eg a meta study supporting your opinion), they're irrelevant.

Funny.

Tells something about the project, IMO.

Not a FX exchange level of traffic. There was no traffic.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47787042

Not sure what you're implying my position is, I said it's *risky* to use it (because there's no spending cap and a small mistake can result in life-changing bill for a hacker/solo dev).

https://x.com/jpschroeder/status/2086144942657712500

There was more.

They're not exactly fringe vendor, design bugs happen, but I thought the phone maker would be responsible for knowingly selling phones with faulty components. No?