Wouldn’t get used by corps probably?
Wouldn’t get used by corps probably?
Yes as it is almost the same category as mastodon
I agree, Israel has committed far too much horror to be ignored, but at the same time I wouldn’t consider them to be representing any “religious group”. They only represent themselves and their supporters, some of which are diverse in religious background.
Corbyn is yet another proof of the hopelessness of Western electoral politics. Just merely viewing Arabs as human gets you disqualified and destroys your political career, when he was a major reason for the party’s success to begin with.
Isn’t it enough to have a single offsite backup?
They already have been
They already have been
Whats the risk? My uptime is pretty good and I host from home.
Why not host at home?
But it’s not self hostable.
Not self hostable and not secure by default.
Most people use JavaScript for this nowadays, but most commentary also hates on it.
I’ll be real with you. There’s a reason JavaScript keeps being chosen despite the hate. It’s so much easier and the dev experience is much more polished for creating desktop apps.
The reason it’s hated on is that it is running a browser in the background, which people view as too bloated for a desktop app. Moreover, JS tends not to play well with system-wide themeing like GTK or QT.
But in the end, as a developer, you’ll be dealing with a lot of messiness going with anything else. If you’re up for a challenge, do try other things. But if you just want something that works and looks nice, do Js
Do you know where I can find them? I will seed them all
Sheinbaum is better than those two, but not as much as you think. Her mayorship and her party have good relations with Israel, cooperated with the US in violence against migrants, and silenced protestors.
Piracy is cool, but I prefer to use community-driven software rather than ones driven by corporate profits. I prefer a model where many can contribute to it, fork it, and for which making integrations is much easier thanks to its openness.
I do agree that the hard left seems to enjoy using “liberal” as an insult, knowing that what most Americans interpret as “liberal” is different than the academic definition they use. It needlessly diverts the conversation and makes them think they’re superior.
Saying “shitlib” is even worse. Basically an adhom attack, not acceptable when the other party is being civil and respectful.
On #2 and #3, I don’t think that is relevant to the original accusation. Of course they will uphold their own views. But #1 is very valid. Though I wish to see examples of it because I have not.
Do you have examples? I am not doubting, since I’ve seen loads of people saying it. But I’ve never come across it myself.
Pharma investors have a solid position and are already racking big profits from the continuous model of insulin treatments. A cure would be a detriment to their profits, so it’s not something they’re interested in funding.
No investor nowadays thinks a one-time-payment product is worthwhile. We’re already way past that.
This isn’t to mention that if you were an investor who decided you wanted to go ahainst that, that the other mega corporations (with more funds than most of those 5% individuals) wouldn’t engage in anti competitive practices to shut you down. Many companies had good products but still ultimately failed. I mean hell, the boeing events have shown us the lengths a corporation is willing to go to protect its profits, and that’s just what we heard of.
Unfortunately capitalism does not allow innovation to flourish like many of us were taught to believe.
The bar to entry in the pharma market is extremely high. You need a lot of capital to enter it, which quickly disqualifies 95% of the population.
Now of course, people without money can still get funding from investors. But those investors are already racking big profits from the continuous model of insulin treatments. A cure would be a detriment to their profits, so it’s not something they’re interested in funding. Not all pharma is insulin, but it’s one of the bigger pharma industries.
This isn’t to mention that if you were one of the 5% and managed to have the resources to find and produce a cure, that the other mega corporations (with more funds than most of those 5% individuals) wouldn’t engage in anti competitive practices to shut you down. Many companies had good products but still ultimately failed.
Unfortunately capitalism does not allow innovation to flourish like many of us were taught to believe.
That’s just a bandaid on capitalism’s issues. Urging people not to support the biggest actor will never work in the grand scheme of things, when said actor provides their best immediate interests.