I found this: https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/the-end-of-divest/23396/43

I’ve worked on this project a decade. That is a long time and I need to move on in life.

Sounds like a single person maintaining such a large project for such a long time means eventually you have had enough. I get that.

Getting an inheritance is generational wealth. How come generational wealth is ok but only if I’m the one receiving it?

Your question seems like a strawman. My comment was only about the apparent conflict between the two stances and I was not trying to make any comment about whether one or the other is the correct way.

Yeah I find it a little funny that people complain about generational wealth and then complain about not getting an inheritance.

Also the app us malware infested and even leaves malware and spyware on your phone after you delete the app!

“They” used to say McDonald’s is not a restaurant company, it’s a real estate company (they buy land and lease it to franchisees).

Temu is not a cheap crap company, they are a data company. Their business is to collect data and sell it to profit. The cheap crap you get doesn’t need to make them money, because they are in they business of data harvesting and selling. The cheap crap is just how they get your data.

If anyone offers you even cheaper stuff if you buy it through the app, then that’s a good sign they want to sell your data.

I have about 6 or 8 ethernet cables in use plus more in my spare cables box, and I don’t remember ever paying for one. Where do they come from? I never seem to run out.

As someone else commented, it appears that the license isn’t free because when you share it the new person now owes the original author a beer if they ever meet them, so the middle person isn’t free to do whatever they like because of the ongoing obligation being forced on their users.

Ah yes that makes sense.

I thought it was free as in speech not free as in beer? So if it costs a beer then isn’t it still free (as in speech)? Or is this a OSI vs FSF difference?

I think it just depends on what activates your over anxiousness.

That part isn’t on the original cover. Is this a real foldout from a recent MAD issue that is an updated version of the 1974 cover?

Hmm the original doesn’t have that bit in the bottom right about the original concept. Is this a real MAD foldout based on an old cover but updated for the current hot topic?

I don’t think this is real. If you search up the issue number you’ll see the real version. It’s also from 1974.

Just like the rest of my code.

I think this is still not a citable claim. You link to the affirmative conclusion from a negative premise which includes that statement, but that page is explaining what that is. Your other page is using a claim to prove a different topic.

The problem is that Wikipedia is not where you prove things. You need to cite somewhere else that proves it, and you need to do it in an impartial way.

For example, saying that ‘“If you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t fear surveillance from the state” is a logical fallacy’ and citing the book makes Wikipedia have that stance.

But in contrast, you could say that 'Critics argue that the argument “If you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t fear surveillance from the state” is a logical fallacy" then cite the book, this way the critic is the one with the opinion and not Wikipedia.

More citations of more critics would probably help too.

I’m not an expert on Wikipedia by any means, but I do see why someone may have considered this statement not belonging on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has some info here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Also see the links at the top of that page about “Verifiability” and “No Original Research” as these are the three key things needed to allow the statement.

Not that I disagree, but Wikipedia requires specific criteria for sources. I am not sure that a book about it being a logical fallacy meets that criteria any more than a book about parenting could be used to prove how to parent a child.

Are there other Wikipedia pages that claim things to be logical fallacies that could be used to see what the burden of proof is for this claim?

Yes, but this is something you are using 5-10 times a day… right? Something else can go.

Any smoke alarm I’ve seen always has the year of production on them, or the year of expiry (typically 10 years after production).

As someone in a Commonwealth country, it is so weird to me that people would microwave a jug of water to make a cup of tea instead of buying a $5 kettle.

So it can doomscroll like the rest of us? What’s it gonna do for the 23 hours a day it’s not working?

Sounds like he had three bad experiences over 4 years. That sounds like, on average, the world is not such a bad place.