Oh awesome! I saw their website just describes them as “source accessible” and that github didn’t detect a license type and (wrongly) took that to mean it was an “open core but not really open source” product.

Was about to point you to MatterMost but saw it’s not open source, doh! Anyone know if it was and switched? Or was it always closed source?

Edit: Turns out it was and still is open source, I just apparently suck at researching.

This is just an awesome list- thanks!

I agree, but I also sort of think that’s fair enough. The fact that most people “buying” ebooks don’t understand what their transaction implies suggests a major market failing.

Sounds like it’s working great for you- I wish it would for me too! I’m not OP but some of my main gripes are:

• Most calls have, for at least one caller, a wierd lag time where the call doesn’t start for 10 seconds or so

• Quite frequently (I’d guess 5 calls a month) a call will be disrupted by teams failing completely for someone on the call (camera not working, not being able to join etc)

• It uses a lot of RAM even when idling

• It has hundreds of features, like “together mode” that bloat the software without adding to its core functionality

• The UI is a confused mess, and the conceptual split between teams, channels and chats is messyat best.

On top of that, I don’t find teams makes me more productive, if feels like a constant distraction that modern corporate culture requires me to have, even though its a net drop in productivity. This last point is more on instant messengers as a whole, but it doesn’t place me in a very charitable or forgiving mindset for interpretting Team’ multitude of flaws.

Never new about this! That’s very handy

I live around deer forests and they always seem pretty street smart all things considered, pheasants on the other hand. . .

Later on, George swipes when she shows a picture to get even, finds out she supports the wrong baseball team, and spends the rest of the episode trying to break up with her without revealing whybecause she’d find out that he swiped.

deleted by creator

I think those are pros of nuclear. The alternative to a static system like that would be a very diverse flexible one with lots of different energy types and markets to encourage users to flex usage up or down.

I’m not trying to make a case either way though, just explaining what perspectives might lead people to be concerned about climate change and still anti-nuclear.

There’s a great distinction that Norwegian philosopher and deep ecologist Anre Naess makes between long-range and short-range movements which I think helps explain the disagreement a little.

In the short term, we need to reduce CO2 for our own survival. Nuclear helps this, so from this angle it seems counterproductive for anyone who claims concern over the environment to object to its development.

In the long term, humans need to transition away from a society based on resource extraction, and long term damage. It’s a lot harder to see how nuclear helps with this- mining and enriching uranium are destructive processes, and nuclear waste needs containment for thousands of years.

Our current situation is pretty critical, so I think it’s pretty legitimate to think that we might need to make some compromises between the long and short term. But I think the distinction makes it a lot clearer about why people seem to be shouting passed each other sometimes.

I hadn’t heard of this project until I saw this meme. Can someone explain? Surely there’s some kind of condition assessment right? Like, nobody would just plan a bunch of random trees in random soil when getting a scientist to carry out an assessment is such a fraction of the cost?

Think you’re confusing the French Revolution (violent uprising of the French against their aristocratic rulers during the Enlightenment) with the French Resistance (Underground movement during WW2 that resisted Nazi occupation)

I think his politics are pretty far right, at least based on this video: https://youtu.be/nvQ-ZY460WQ

Here’s my hot tip! (ok maybe luke warm)

Write as much of your CICD in a scripting language like bash/python/whatever. You’ll be able to test it locally and then the testing phase of your CICD will just be setting up the environment so it has the right git branches coined, permissions, etc.

You won’t need to do 30 commits now, only like 7! And you’ll cry for only like 20 minutes instead of a whole afternoon!

Man, I sure wish cybertrucks had been around to deflect when I spent 7 years driving a Fiat Panda.

By the power invested in me by, well, nobody whatsoever, can I just take a minute to say, let’s all cool down a little in the comments!

There’s a lot of arguing against:

• The idea that acknowledging the tragic reality of climate change makes you defeatist
• The idea that because we have had some great advantages in green tech we can sit back and let climate change fix itself

I don’t see anyone making those arguments here though! Just lots of people concerned about climate change with different skews of how positive/negative we should feel.

Personally, I swing between powerful optimism and waking in terror at 3:00am for the future we’re hurtling towards. I’m sure other people are the same, so let’s just be friendly to the fact that other people are in different vibes to us.

There are some people working together very well right now to dismantle the climate, so let’s all remember that when we’re talking with each other.

Peace and love!

Ok really tangential rant here!

I find societal attitudes to art and morality really crazy.

I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea that art and morality should be linked, but it only ever seems to happen in a negative capacity of “don’t listen to x because they did y”.

There’s a whole strain of:

• Artists who are not necessarily bad people, but whose art is aggresively immoral (I guess an obvious example would be Biggie Smalls or someone who frequently raps about sexual assault and violence in a positive way, but also the ammount of mainstream pop or country that has sexist or racist undertones)
• Artists who try hard to inject their morality into their work (such as Becky Chambers’ climate positive fiction, or Giancinto Scelsi’s anti-facist music)

On the whole, I don’t see anyone care very much about the above two points, people just “like what they like”, which is as if we think morality and art are two seperate things.

That makes sense, but then there’s this wierd category where “oh that person did this bad thing, so now their art is invalid”.

So, what’s the overall attitude? Like, art isn’t related to morality generally, but there’s some mysterious line where if it’s crossed art moves into the “forbidden zone”?

I’m all for calling bad people to account for their moral behaviour, but the way we do it in art is so jumbled and inconsistent.

I wish I’d read this years ago! I’ve nearly bankrupted myself buying a new machine each time, thanks!

Yeah, that’s my experience too. I think once projects get to a certain size, you really reap the benefits of strong opinions, regardless if what those opinions are.