If you’re comfortable with whatever text editor git uses, give git rebase -i a try.

That’s all I ever commit

The most twisted part about this is that at least immigrants create jobs as well. Just like you and me, they need housing, groceries, doctors, entertainment, and so on and so forth. The idea that an immigrant is a net negative for the job market is exactly as stupid as getting upset at people for having more children because it will have a negative effect on the job market.

Oh an btw I decide what guilty means. Open up your curtains.

You wanted this because you thought it would only harm people you disagree with. You thought wrong.

Don’t talk to me like I’m some liberal.

How can you verify that someone is of age without the problem with privacy?

That’s the neat part!

This has nothing to do whatsoever with protecting children. That is not the goal. This is anti-privacy, plain and simple. Discussing the merits of this plan as a child protection measure is agreeing to their framing of the discussion, it’s agreeing to discuss it on their terms, and then you’ve already lost.

Here’s a real counterargument: suppose we pass this, and the fascists win the election (I know, completely and utterly unimaginable, but bear with me). Now, organizing protests via social media (as it went in Tunisia, Egypt, Brazil, and so on) becomes impossible, because your actual identity is tied to your social media accounts. In the current climate the fascists will probably go after muslims first, so I hope you haven’t said scary things like insh’allah on facebook, because the government has your name now. Are you gay? Better hope you haven’t left a thirsty comment on the insta of someone of your gender, because the government will know.

Of course, we don’t need to imagine some hypothetical fascist government. I hope you don’t object to genocide and post about it online, because that can be declared support of terrorism at the drop of a hat, and that’s illegal.

There’s a couple million Palestinians living there that do not deserve to be nuked.

We need a radio free America paid for by the Chinese.

They’d rather incur the costs of running two assemblies side by side, than simply give everyone access to a means of easily repair their switch.

I guarantee you they’ve made the calculation and found that the cost is well offset by the profits gained from the inability of other markets to repair their owned switches.

Yeah I guess. Doesn’t really change any of the arguments against it though. I mean, it’s good that it’s open source of course, but the ceo is still a homophobe, for example. And it still chromium based, and so on.

I don’t have a strong opinion on brave, but here’s some reasons I can think of:

• cryptocoin shit
• based on chromium (so using this instead of firefox, for example, increases google’s hegemony – and this is true: even though chromium is open source, google completely controls its direction)
• CEO is a homophobe
• scammy business practices like inserting affiliate codes in urls

And this is just the stuff that I know from the top of my head. I don’t particularly care about this topic, so I’m sure there’s more. Although, having written all this out, I can sense that my opinion of Brave has worsened significantly.

For those of you who are not as intimately familiar with potoooooooo’s birthdate as I am: they had slaves until 1986

Apparently not good enough, if we look at the case of rsync. Remember, this while conversation started because of some show stopping bugs caused by generated code.

That’s some real temporarily embarrassed millionaire shit. Stop licking the boot.

Ok, well I don’t have much of an opinion on the moderation thing. I do think that saying “what the fuck do I pay you for” is deeply unprofessional.

So do you think the lawyer was right in that steam should be more heavily moderated?

Where did I say anything about steam or its content moderation stuff?

A “de facto” monopoly (whatever that is) has all the drawbacks of a “real” monopoly (whatever that is): reduced incentive for innovation, possibility for price fixing, means for anticompetitive practices, and so on. The distinction is entirely meaningless when you look at the actual impact an <adjective> monopoly has on society.

I’m gonna go in hard with a controversial opinion here: saying things like “what the fuck do I pay you for” to your employees is toxic and unprofessional, and the moment my boss would raise their voice to me like that is the moment I’d start looking for a new job.

I speak Dutch and this is entirely correct.