Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit and is now exploring new vistas in social media.
I find a ton of uses for quick Python scripts hammered out with Bing Chat to get random stuff done.
It’s also super useful when brainstorming and fleshing out stuff for the tabletop roleplaying games I run. Just bounce ideas off it, have it write monologues, etc.
Actually, you can do exactly that. Fork them.
You can’t force the people who are using Github to follow you, of course. But that’s every individual’s choice.
You think Microsoft is the only “evil corporation” among these? That’s very naive. Any hosting service will deplatform users when they can see a profit to be made from doing so.
“We” as in the conversation as a whole. You joined an ongoing thread.
So we’ve moved from “GitHub is not open source” to “GitHub has some support software for peripheral features that is not open-source?” I’m definitely failing to see the rant-worthiness of it at this point. It’s certainly not monopolistic, platforms like GitLab and Bitbucket also provide these features. And I’d bet that some of them have their own proprietary software to support these things too.
There’s quite a series of leaps of logic here.
Because Google (not Microsoft) released a project under the BSD license (an open source license) but “everyone on Lemmy” doesn’t think it’s open source, therefore a hosting site owned by Microsoft (not Google) is not “open source.”
I’m not even sure what is meant by GitHub being “open source.” It’s a hosting provider, not an actual piece of software. The site itself doesn’t have a source license. The individual repositories can have licenses, which can be whatever the user who created the repository sets it to be - including open source licenses. Do you mean GitHub Desktop? Microsoft released that under the MIT license. And you don’t need GitHub Desktop to use GitHub anyway.
Oh, that’s what you meant. How do you contribute to a project on any git host if that git host won’t let you? In what way is GitHub any different from that?
You’re not “pretty fucked”. Just use one of the many other git hosts out there. OP himself lists some of them in his rant.
Microsoft has developed many open-source projects. The view of Microsoft as some kind of anti-open-source crusader is 20 years out of date.
All of those issues would arise if you wanted to migrate an established project to Github as well.
This isn’t even a problem with historical awareness, OP knows that Github isn’t a monopoly. They listed off a bunch of alternatives in their rant. I’m really not sure what they were even complaining about.
Content warning: this is a rant from a teenager who has strong opinions.
Okay…
However, it holds a monopoly on software.
You don’t know what a “monopoly” is.
they could just go “Boop! You’re gone!” and there’s nothing I could do about it other than move forges.
Yeah, nothing you could do about it, other than moving to one of the many other git hosts. Monopoly!
And then after listing off a whole bunch of alternative git hosts…
Centralization is not bad by itself but it’s bad when there’s no other option. There just needs to be ways to contribute to code without having to use Github.
You have plenty of ways to do that, and you know that because you just listed them. Github is not a monopoly.
Also, I don’t see the concept of open source mentioned at any point in this rant.
That’s a stopgap measure. The root problem is the electorate and I’m really not sure how to fix that.
Perhaps the best way to “Trump proof” the transatlantic relationship is to accept that the transatlantic relationship is not an immutable fact of nature and be ready for it to maybe fall apart someday.
Sounds like a purity spiral may be revving up.
Indeed. There are lots of proposals for perfectly portable decentralized user identities, subscriptions that transcend specific instances, and whatnot, but until those things actually arrive that’s not the Fediverse we’re dealing with. It’s a hassle having to switch instances.
It says “opt-out” in the title.
Indeed. Firefox already has “sponsored links” and such in the built-in homepage, I simply disable those when I first install it and get on with life.
Big projects like Firefox need big money to support it. If you don’t want it to be beholden to Google it needs to find ways to earn some on its own.
And replace it with what? The only two basic forms of democracy are representative and direct, and direct democracy has its own problems.
I can’t imagine how a representative democracy would operate otherwise. In representative democracies you’re picking some person to make decisions on your behalf, and that person is different from you so some of their decisions are not going be the ones you would have made if you were in their place.
You may be wanting direct democracy, in which you would personally get to vote on the government’s actions. Your “representative” would be perfect in that case because your representative would be you. But since you would only represent yourself, that’s not what would normally be called “representative democracy.”
And once again, we see the real mechanism by which terrorism “wins”. Israel has hurt itself in its confusion.