Jerkface (any/all)

Nah. When people use medical terminology to stigmatize and dehumanize people, they are using words wrong. When people use the word for a class of person as an insult, they are using words wrong. When people speak in bad faith, they are using words wrong.

1. That’s a revisionist view of China’s labour history. There have been many examples where the glorious leadership did NOT find meaningful employment for its workers.
   The Chinese government sees their citizens as a means, not an end. If it works out better to let people starve homeless, people will shiver in the rain. If it’s cheaper to use slaves, they will use slaves. If it’s cheaper to let people die, people will die. If they don’t anticipate the need for human labour in the future and there are a billion extra mouths to feed, a billion people will die.

2. China has some of the worst domestic environmental damage in the world. To their credit, they also have some of the best environmental remediation, but it’s still selling out the future of everyone on the planet.

3. I’m not the one holding out exploitation as prosperity, so I do not have to defend the actions of other exploitative environments. By your own logic, they should be viewed strictly in terms of their prosperity, so obviously you think things in Germany and the USA are just peachy.
   But I would note that in Germany and the USA, corporations are independent of the state and the state is not directly benefiting from that exploitation to the same degree – merely enabling it through legislative capture. But that is not a thing in China because the Chinese government is effectively entirely captured, being effectively the same entity as all the major Chinese corporations.

You just conceded the argument right there. Your purpose here isn’t to promote China and make people think it’s good, it’s to merely create doubt about the subject. That’s all the wiggle that is needed. So, bad faith arguments are all you really need.

Those manufacturing jobs for humans are super safe in the coming decade, and selling out future generations’ natural legacy surely won’t have negative consequences. You’re looking at exploitation of the labour class by the ruling class and saying it’s prosperity. Well, yes, of a sort.

Apparently I was unclear by what I meant by “commercial porn”, which was: porn that you pay for. If you want to purchase commercial porn, you need a credit card. To use a credit card, you must reveal the verified identity associated with it. To answer your initial question, my point was to draw your attention to the many interactions you already accept that are strongly associated with your legal identity. Personally, I would rather not give up my legal identity just to buy groceries from my local corrupt corporate grocery store, and I find that a LOT more invasive than doing so for porn.

100% of commercial porn sites have always required you to identify yourself.

I will not be responding to comments.

Then fuck off. Like, actually. We’re not here for you to use to meet your emotional needs and not actually contribute.

My dog lost his nose in an accident when he was a puppy.

Oh, no! How does he smell?

Terrible!!

This happened for me less than half an hour into The Phantom Menace.

To me, Linux is the almost unbearable compromise to the mainstream, coming from BSD.

No, it has never even once bothered my why people install Linux on their own hardware. Not even now that you have brought it to my attention. What is on my mind right now is why you care so much.

How is this any sadder than just closing your eyes and thinking really hard while you crank one out

That’s treating the justice system as a cudgel to hurt people you want hurt. It’s not meant to hurt anyone. I think what you want is maybe a mob or a hired thug?

I was always taught that these were called “Hindu-Arabic numerals”

You could use “left” and “right”

You know:

• I
• II
• III
• IIII
• IIIII
• IIIIII
• …

Yeah, why didn’t I provision multiple backbones to my NOC? So shortsighted!

There was a “we” that produced the first public licenses – amateur and enthusiast software developers, who previously were simply publishing things to the “public domain”. And “we” had clear goals in doing so, which we often wrote directly into our ad hoc self-written licenses. They weren’t handed down by God, there is a mortal history, and living people here were part of it.

I agree that the GPL should be viewed as a cultural artifact, not a legal one. It’s just the spirit of shareware, but without money involved.

In context of the many failures, I don’t think this establishes anything.

The original intention of public licenses was never to prevent code from spreading in any circumstance. Rather, that’s the “innovation” of copy-left. We just wanted a way to share our code without putting the people who used it into legal hot water. We didn’t want to control or manipulate people, using our code to extort a particular behavior out of them. We just wanted to share our code. I think copy-left makes sense in certain situations but I don’t think it should be the default option of a person wanting to contribute to culture.