If it makes you feel better, I do that off of Lemmy, too.

Yeah, I’d be happy if they had an unsupported version, but I get that could cause negative publicity for those who couldn’t accept that unsupported means exactly that.

Sadly, SailfishOS is region locked. Being from North America, I can’t purchase their phones, or use the trial/emulation option, which really sucks because I like a lot of what I’m seeing there.

There are absolutely jobs where hiring the most qualified person for the job is critical. There are a lot of jobs where the threshold for good enough is far below that, and most companies are at least as concerned at getting the cheapest labor that can fulfill the position as they are at getting the best person (at that lower rate). Adding additional constraints like diversity isn’t going to affect those jobs any more than the company’s desire to save a buck.

So if a company traditionally had 10 men employees and now has committed to having gender equality, you see this as 5 jobs where men are no longer considered, rather than it historically being 10 jobs where women weren’t considered?

I don’t remove responsibility from the people, but don’t pretend that companies don’t spend piles of cash on marketing when it has absolutely no influence on their customers’ purchasing decisions. Also, don’t pretend that marketing isn’t pandering to appeal and not function.

So what you’re saying is that marketing provides a sober, unbiased presentatiin of the benefits and drawbacks of the products they’re trying to sell, and people make rational, informed decisions? No, like you said, most people behave little better than monkeys, and marketing caters to that, further skewing the norms and pushing people to buy things based on perceived benefits while ignoring the real drawbacks. Next you’ll tell me the prescription opioid epidemic wasn’t exacerbated by the claims that the new opioids were less addictive and pharmaceutical companies incentivizing doctors to prescribe them more than necessary, a lot of words that boil down to ‘marketing’.

You also ignore the role marketing has to play in convincing people that they need those things. Most people don’t need an SUV, let alone a truck, yet I see plenty of people driving these, and even thinking they’re safer than sedans. But they cost more money, which means more profit, and why would it be surprising that people who sell something with a relatively inelastic market want to maximize profit dollars per sale?

Looks like we found someone who believed it was financially necessary for the manufacture of the shuttle to be spread across the country.

deleted by creator

If you want to put an idea out there, permissive licenses are the most likely to promote it. Any individual or organization can use it without restrictions (or restrictions that aren’t unpalatable to most). So if what you’re trying to promote is an idea, a technique, or a standard, this type of license allows it to have the greatest reach.

I’m not sure why you would buy an open-source company/product, particularly a GPLv3 one, if you didn’t understand or agree with the premise. It’s probably the stupidest decision he made. I’m not saying I agree with his other decisions, but most of them made some kind of business sense. With this one, he would have saved a lot of time and effort and received the same value if he’d just spun OO.o off ASAP. The linked timeline kind of says it all.

You’re talking the CEO of a company who sued Google on the premise that header files, a descriptor file for what commands can be used and what parameters they took, should be copyrighted? The CEO who poisoned the OpenOffice community so thoroughly that the fork, LibreOffice, was founded by the leaders of OpenOffice and became the de facto standard instead of the original, and it happened overnight? That guy?

We can do a number of things, but dealing with the root causes for a number of societal issues will lead to better results than sweeping actions to stop things that are only hurting a tiny minority in any significant way.

Here’s an example. Every study that has been done shows that alcohol use causes harm. People tend to enjoy it, however, to the point where they will break the law to have it. This makes it more difficult to diagnose and treat, and provides sources of income for organized crime if we ban it. So instead, we restrict its use to adults, heavily fine people who sell to minors, provide awareness campaigns, etc. Because sometimes a simple, heavy-handed solution creates new, larger problems.

The key issue seems to be people with poor mental health and/or critical thinking skills making poor decisions. The obvious answer would be to deal with their mental health or critical thinking issues, something which very few countries in the world are doing to any useful degree, but the US is doing worse than most developed countries.

Or we could regulate or ban AI. That seems easier.

Love that “disruptive” is a valid term for companies like that.

Lol this is the typical takeaway. A better result would be to not engage in illegal practices and then it doesn’t matter if you put it in writing, but that’s not how you become a billionaire.

Yes, but if you increase the funding, they will say “Why is science so expensive?”

Why can’t we spend $20 billion on a full-scale reactor that may very well not work? Why is science so slow?

Thanks for the info!