Just because it might be legal to violate copyrights in other countries doesn’t make the code considered open source though lol.

Like I give a shit, I knew what the fuck they meant.

No, because lesbian is generally understood to mean a woman attracted to women. Alone. Wife is just a gendered term for spouse.

oubilete of agony

Amazing word smithing. 💖

YFW the part about “to see how men and women react differently to pain” was a ruse. They are actually studying how men rate their pain differently when told they’re being compared to women versus when they’re not.

Yesssss, so true. Anytime people say they want history to be “clean” I insist they explain what they mean because more often than not they’re going to suggest something that makes the history way less useful.

Any standard that wastes valuable space in the first line of the commit is a hard sell. I don’t see the point in including fix/feat/feat! just for the sake of “easy” semantic versioning because generally you know if the next release is going to be major or minor and patches are generally only only after specific bugs. Scanning the commits like this also puts way too much trust in people writing good commit messages which nobody ever seems to do.

Also, I fucking hate standards that use generic names like this. It’s like they’re declaring themselves the correct choice. Like “git flow”.

And then my team squashes those commits 😩

Generally I’d consider calling someone who identifies as bisexual a lesbian to be bi erasure since lesbian is generally understood to mean a woman attracted to women so it would be erasing the fact that they’re attracted to other genders.

You’re being obtuse. I get the point you’re trying to make – you’ve been heard. I’m just saying those aren’t the terms you should be using to make it. Open source has a very distinct definition and it has to do with the licenses covering the code. It has nothing to do with whether different countries have differing laws. Code cannot be open source in one country and not open source in another because the definition has nothing to do with countries. In fact, that would specifically not be open source because it gives rights to some and not others.

If someone infringes on a copyright that doesn’t mean the work isn’t copyrighted. You can’t just say things that are source available are open source. Even if someone is infringing on the rights holders they’re still only source available.

Open source doesn’t mean source available. You simply aren’t using the term correctly.

Please don’t muddy the water with terms like this. Something is open source if and only if it has an open source license.

Don’t forget that “open source” has a different definition than “source available”.

while nearly no one is complaining about MS using github to train their copilot LLM,

Lots of people complained about that. I’ve only seen this single thread complaining about this.

I know. Just the “full-stack meta frameworks” part alone makes any ADHD person feel nausea.

??? Please don’t make weird blanket statements like this.

1 hundred times!

The ol’ Lemmy Switcheroo!

On the rubric

Anachronistic like magic in medieval settings?