It's not a good idea to spread fake news like this correctiv disinformation:
"At the center of the proceedings is a Tagesschau report that was based on misleading assessments of the Correctiv report. It was falsely claimed that the expulsion of German citizens and the revocation of citizenship based on racist criteria had been discussed at the meeting in Potsdam. This was refuted by affidavits from the participants."
So they didn't have proof, and some participants pinky swore? Cool. And whenever someone gets caught frothing at the mouth over putting people into mass graves and pissing on them or whatever, and other such things that are a constant with the AfD, they leave the party before they get kicked out.
You NEVER heard that shit from the AfD first though, isn't that weird? Like, that someone says such things internally and it causes a ruckus. It's only when non-Nazis catch wind of it and it causes a scandal. Time and time again.
Which is Nazi 101. Which is what they do, until they have enough power and laugh in your face for expecting them to stick to their lip service. We've been there before. All sorts of people have all sorts of experiences with the Nazis and all sorts of ideas, not all of them wrong, but this is ground zero. They live among us, they swim in their sewage of what started as RT-style one sided criticism and by now is just deranged FUD for over a decade now, morphing from what crawled out of the underbrush in the early 90s, they do nothing but block politics -- because they want to "abolish the system", not work together with others in a pluralistic democracy -- and get funded by all sorts of shady sources, a lot of which the subject of criminal investigations.
Certified by agencies of the left extremist government which treats the justification as classified information.
Moreover, one of these agencies is run by a left-wing comrade who is a qualified social education worker. However, the agency should actually be headed by a lawyer, as in the Thuringian law, which was simply reinterpreted in the case of Stephan J. Kramer.
Someone impersonating someone else is already forbidden. The impersonators in Vegas get by because they are openly claiming to be impersonators. Nobody in their right mind is going to think the fake Elvis on the corner is actually Elvis.
An actor is already impersonating somebody else in a play, movie or television. This bill is there to protect the income of an actor.
Actually it is recursive: Why should it be forbidden to create an artificial person which impersonates the actor impersonating the role in a movie or play?
For me, this discussion won't lead anywhere because it covers the wrong topic.
It's not about Rust or C - it's about transparency. The existing maintainers assume that it is not a priority for them whether they break something downstream or not. They therefore work in a space with interfaces that they can change as they see fit, without giving any guarantees as to their continued existence or wanting to subordinate themselves to a defined change process.
Rust is just a symptom of growing pains. Growth would be achieved if they could agree on common rules which would foster independent development linked by the interface contracts.
Instead, the issue is that established maintainers have grown fond of their zoo and are only pursuing their own priorities in a landlord-like manner. On the other hand, they see new technologies appearing and disappearing on the horizon and have consequently realized that a new technology or language cannot improve an existing system.
And yet they are classically talking past each other.
The protocols provide first-hand evidence that a large part of the measures such as lockdowns, masks, vaccination recommendations were not based on science, but were invented by politicians based on their own interests.
The RKI was only used to sell these orders to the public by given their ideas a scientific face.
If it's a public good, then it's a public good. So whoever wants to use it according to the license it's fine.
If something is produced where the author is upset afterwards when this good is not used in the way he/she intended to, than it's the problem of the author in the first place to have choosen the wrong license.
I think this policy is yet another example of ethical overengineering.
Yes, of course, ChatGPT & Co. are very unlikely to take any real care about what they give their models to learn - especially with regard to copyright.
For a better perspective, I always try to transfer the behavior to the analog world. In this sense, someone who, for example, illegally obtains a book on Linux (let's say via ebook) would not be ethically in the correct position to contribute to Gentoo, because the knowledge on which their contribution is based would be stolen intellectual property.
I can't imagine that there are any people in this world whose knowledge was obtained exclusively through copyright legal means. We are all in a gray area - one possibly more than the other.
In my view, it is typical of engineers to simply transfer philosophically complicated moral issues to technologies. But this method will never come close to solving anything, because the very complicated analog moral world cannot simply be mapped to 0 or 1.
Many third-party themes still package it. I've looked at alternatives, and they're either less function with way more config, or they are trying to be Excel clones.
As soon as there are significant protests by farmers and middle class against the government, a government-sponsored activist NGO publishes a lurid paper about a meeting of conservatives that took place in November 2023. Two days later, another government NGO named the word "remigration" as the bad word of the year 2023 and a few days later a play was even staged in Berlin about this alleged meeting.
Although the article cannot substantiate its claims in any way (e.g. the alleged "secret plan" has been available to everyone in book form for months), the public service media adopt every assertion without distance and make completely unsavory comparisons with the Third Reich.
The government has thus successfully suppressed the perception of protests by farmers and the middle classes. Propaganda in its purest form.
"At the center of the proceedings is a Tagesschau report that was based on misleading assessments of the Correctiv report. It was falsely claimed that the expulsion of German citizens and the revocation of citizenship based on racist criteria had been discussed at the meeting in Potsdam. This was refuted by affidavits from the participants."
https://www.hoecker.eu/news/wer-auf-correctiv-setzt-zahlt-dr...
more details: https://www.tichyseinblick.de/daili-es-sentials/correctiv-ca...