7
submitted 23 minutes ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
18
submitted 1 hour ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
16
submitted 5 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
[-] [email protected] 6 points 5 hours ago

Use this one weird trick to get free energy from your old smoke detectors!

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

Is there a clear business model? It seems like the goal is to make it free for collectives and non-profit use, and then collect fees from for-profit companies. The CC-NC-SA has an obvious business case because not everyone has the capability to set up and use the software, but it's popularity can create a secondary market for people to pay for other people to host it for them -> leading to revenue. Basically the Freeware model with the addition of the source being open. With art it creates a carve-out for copyright that allows free sharing, but once the art is used in a commercial context, the artist should get a cut of the revenue.

But if there's a secondary market of collectives providing that service without the need to pay, wouldn't they out-compete a privately owned service that pays for the software? Why would a privately owned service fund a software company that doesn't want them to exist? Likewise, why would a corporation use an artist's work that was shared under this license?

[-] [email protected] 13 points 6 hours ago

Kyle Gass’s agent was Michael Greene of Greene Talent Agency. Which conservative clients has he represented? If it's true, someone should really hold his feet to the fire on this.

19
submitted 7 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
[-] [email protected] 9 points 7 hours ago

Succinct and eloquent.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago

I think this would be a difficult sell, in part because not only would you need to write ironclad terms, you've need a whole new organization to enforce it. I don't think the Free Software Foundation would endorse it.

I could see a similar thing working with art and literature though - Creative Commons already has a non-commercial license, so creating a new category of restricted artistic license doesn't seem too far off from what they've already endorsed.

13
submitted 8 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
23
submitted 8 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
[-] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago

No one is illegal!

7
submitted 13 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
54
submitted 18 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
258
submitted 19 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
24
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
77
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Thank you! To me his first words after being shot were much more iconic than even that fist-flag-photo.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm not a Marxist, but I know that what Marx believed changed over his lifetime, expressing new ideas in his letters while rejecting old ones, and removing and altering sections of his works in later editions. So being 'Marxist' doesn't necessitate incorporating all of his ideas on authoritarianism. Typically the Marxists I meet do philosophically adapt to new information, though admittedly in many parts of the world 'Marxist-Leninist Thought' is a canonical set of ideas meant to be memorized from a textbook.

people’s unwillingness to admit that the Soviet Union and CCP weren’t just “unlucky” attempts

To claim the USSR was inevitably authoritarian ignores the nature of the revolution that created it. The Tsar was defeated by a coalition of groups, which in turn were cannibalized by the authoritarian Bolsheviks. There is no guarantee that the result of that battle royale would end with Lenin the victor. It's an erasure of the Black Guards, the Krondstat Navy, and the Makhnovshchina to name a few.

No-one is claiming the PRC was an "unlucky" attempt. Mao admired some aspects of anarchist thought, but he and his comrades based their revolutionary goals on the already existing Soviet state.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The pittance donation was made right after the election -- after the get out the vote campaign was over.

The most credible explanation I've heard is that the kid lost a bet. It lists his name and address, but those kinds of donations don't have the same due diligence as voter registration, so it could also have been someone else trolling him.

4
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
view more: next ›

Five

joined 11 months ago
MODERATOR OF