• 4 Posts
  • 554 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle


  • Adanisi
    cake
    toWorld News@lemmy.worldDeath toll tops 1,000 after Haj marked by extreme heat
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    to many believers that is the truth

    No? Just because some people believe it doesn’t make it true. That’s like saying because many people believe you can see the great wall of China from space, that it’s true.

    A millenium-old book which makes grand claims with no real evidence (and many things wrong!) to back them up so a pedo warlord could live a life of relative luxury with his several wives and conquer Arabia does not count as evidence by the way.

    the butterfly effect for example why it is not possible

    … The butterfly effect is well proven and very easy to see with simply a double pendulum.

    Are you telling me what I can see right in front of me does not exist?

    it is his choice, for how to exercise his love

    Or to never exercise it at all clearly. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t exist?

    Muslims believe that he is most loving so when we don’t see it in this world the assumption is that we will get it in the hereafter.

    Very convenient way of explaining away the fact that good things and bad things happen randomly and/or as a direct result of human actions, not as a result of “Allah” choosing how to “exercise love”.

    This world is not a place for justice and neither is it fair, for we get it in the hereafter.

    How do you know that? There is zero real proof and any “proof” in Islam has been well and truly debunked. You can’t just take an old book at it’s word you know.

    cannot say that this action is bad because you do not possess the ability

    But Allah is infinite therefore he possesses this ability

    What is “this ability” you’re talking about? And Allah doesn’t exist, sorry to break it to you.

    That said, I feel for the families of the people who died.




  • This doesn’t bring any of this to forefront of peoples minds.

    If they didn’t make headlines a lot less people would be talking about climate change at this moment.

    This issue hinges entirely on getting voters to care. Yet, many groups and even you seem to dismiss them, saying “they don’t matter.” In reality, voters are the most crucial factor.

    As I said earlier with examples for each category of people, almost everyone in this issue is not going to be influenced to change their opinion on a massive topic like climate change because of a small annoying group. Except those who’ll be spurred onto direct action.

    And in that quote I was referring to those who complain about any climate activism (see the comments on blocked oil refineries and painted jets YouTube videos). Not voters overall.

    It makes sense that the idea of alienating the general public from climate action might be intentionally promoted by well-funded and organized entities.

    This is a potential issue but as I’ve already said, I think what JSO is doing is quite clever for the cause and I don’t think bad actors are involved. If they are, they’re bad at their job.





  • many climate organizations have been infiltrated

    Ok but:

    1. you’re talking about the US, JSO is UK based

    2. It is a conspiracy theory because you have no hard evidence that JSO is infiltrated and having it’s strings pulled by big oil like you claim

    It distracts from the fight

    No I’d actually argue it brings the fight to the forefront of people’s minds, specifically the people who are actually inclined to do something. Those who do nothing but complain about climate activism were never going to do anything useful and so their thoughts on the methods are frankly irrelevant since the methods work for those who actually want to act.

    We need these groups to be more self aware and create civil action to get people on board instead of making it unpalatable.

    They’ve blockaded oil terminals and vandalised terrible offenders driving climate change, and still do. It was nowhere near as effective as their publicity stunts, which get people talking. They just ended up getting whisked away by police and largely ignored by the news. Pointless.

    Whether you like it or not, the sort of quiet, non-inconvenient activism you seem to be proposing has shown itself to be useless.


  • No, it’s the definition the Open Source Initiative has used since their inception.

    Which… split off from the FSF and the software freedom movement to create the open source movement. Like I said. And that term was never used before they created it. They literally created it and started it’s use. They defined the term. And newcomers don’t get to come and change it because they feel like it.

    They are just one of many open source communities with their own licenses.

    Again, established definition. Stop trying to legitimise your self-concocted definition of “open source”.


  • That would be “crime”.

    A felony is a type of crime which doesn’t exist here.

    You can’t just get upset if someone points out you’ve used a word wrong. Words have meanings and while getting it wrong, especially as a second language, isn’t bad, it’s still incorrect and can be confusing (e.g. most people would assume you’re talking about US law when you talk about felonies).






  • you can’t expect to enforce the definition you like on everyone

    It is literally the definition which has been used since the term’s conception when the open source movement split off from the software freedom movement. It is a well established term with a well established meaning. Just because you don’t want to use that meaning doesn’t mean it isn’t correct and most widely recognised. Its not that I like the definition, it’s that it is the primary definition and always has been.

    Taking the words “open” and “source” separately and interpreting them as you like and combining them is just changing well established meanings to suit yourself, when the whole term “open source” is already well defined.

    it’s been updated

    Okay the new one does seem a bit less egregious to be fair but still doesn’t fit the open source definition due to the restrictions on how you’re allowed to use it and redistribute it.


  • “Silence”? How?

    They don’t make it harder to discuss climate change. People don’t just go “a small group I hate cares about climate change so now I don’t care”. And if they do, well, they never actually cared about the climate. They cared about looking good and were never going to help with anything.

    And stop with the conspiracy that they’re funded by oil executives. The organisation of the granddaughter of an oil billionaire (who is dead) funds 2% of them. Because, children and grandchildren, believe it or not, can disagree with their elders.



  • If someone posts their source code publicly, it’s open source.

    Uh, no. That’s called “source-available”. Terms have meanings. And from the day the words “open source” started being used, this definition is what defined them: https://opensource.org/osd

    You can’t just redefine an established term because it’s inconvenient to your argument.

    It’s unreasonable to ask them to review and maintain every PR

    Good thing being free/open source doesn’t require that, then? It basically just requires the users be free to make their own modifications freely and distribute them freely (and of course to use the program freely). No requirement for public development involvement at all, really. It’s standard practice but by no means necessary.

    If you want to fork it and make changes for yourself, you can

    They can terminate your license for any reason or no reason (stated in the license) making your fork in violation of copyright law :).

    In other words, they can take down your fork if they feel like it. Making the ability to fork useless.

    literally the only qualification for something to be open source …

    Again, terms have established meanings. See above.

    It’s also unreasonable to be upset if they tell you you’re not allowed to take their work and re-sell it for your own profit.

    I don’t see how this paragraph relates to my point at all. Is it about the NewPipe paid clones? Because they were illegal anyways (copyleft violation), no egregious license needed.

    But as you said, NewPipe is also copyleft, and it seems like you don’t have a problem with that. So I don’t really understand what your issue is with Grayjay/FUTO.

    What do you mean “also copyleft”? Are you implying the GrayJay license is copyleft? Because it absolutely isn’t. Again, established term, definition: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html

    You say they have “marketing lies”, but haven’t pointed to any.

    I was referring to Rossmann proudly proclaiming that GrayJay is open source in the announcement (?). The immediate aftermath was a gain in goodwill in the free software/open source communities (you can see this on Reddit threads in those communities upon initial announcement), until people dug into the license and found that its actually a proprietary license.

    And finally, here’s some particularly nasty parts of the license, which funilly enough you don’t ever see in free/open source licenses (because they’re horribly restrictive terms):

    “If you issue proceedings in any jurisdiction against the provider because you consider the provider has infringed copyright or any patent right in respect of the code (including any joinder or counterclaim), your license to the code is automatically terminated.”

    “We may suspend, terminate or vary the terms of this license and any access to the code at any time, without notice, for any reason or no reason, in respect of any licensee, group of licensees or all licensees including as may be applicable any sub-licensees.”