I see you wrote that you’re thinking about making it FOSS. What’s the alternative? Paid software/non-free license + Open Source or proprietary? If you’re low on time and don’t have the capacity to maintain (bugfixes/reports from users) yourself then I say proprietary is a no-go. Then about the license - IMO (though I don’t have hard data on that on hand) people much more likely contribute to FOSS as opposed to locked in license + open source model.

On the opposite - version 8 is great.

None

Memmy renders it just fine for me

TBH I prefer this approach to what OpenAI is presenting - if I prompt to present the benefits of X I want the result not openai’s opinion on the matter. Sure, you can add a disclaimer that it’s hypothetical, wrong, whatnot - but not outright decide on what can you answer and what answer will not be provided.

ChatGPT is notoriously bad in “knowing better what you asked than yourself”.

I understand the meme as being about the glory days (or at least closer to them) vs whatever slow, niche burn this is in the times of the new logo. Firefox is great, I wish they invested more money they’re getting into development though (they’re pretty good financially reading by the reports yet they’re… reducing development teams?).

That said I’m fed with minimalism everywhere and want the detailed, colorful icons to make a comeback :’( Firefox actually does reasonably good job design-wise in the “modern world” (with the opposites being google apps - the epitome of generic blandness). I was reading article recently on neumorphism as successor to skeuomorphism trend and I’ve fucking got my fingers crossed so hard for it to become popular.

Ah, much better

Weird, totally opposite at Memmy - can’t click ones with !

I’ll submit an issue I guess.

c/Unexpected40K (huh, we miss that one)

What…the… Why?

Damn, I thought it restricted you from having a kid at first :’)

Damn it, my client crashed twice when typing here and I don’t have the heart to retype my longish answer again.

I’ll be brief, sorry

my bad, I was typing examples of how introducing law deemed radical would have negative consequences and backlash from general populace, showing how politicians use tactics to not scare the public (e.g. distraction with 9/11 to introduce more spicy parts of patriot act or sloooow meddling with electoral rules and districts so that the voter gets bored) - I diverged to general world, this is about academia and higher ed, you’re right. Even more radical stuff could be introduced here as more vocal opposing groups simply don’t care and most conservatives treat higher ed as a lost cause of sorts

Thank you for an in-depth answer!

About lack of possibility to accommodate both pro-life and pro-choice: so to sum it up your stance is to force them out from academia? Pro-life believe abortion is murder - argument about “equitable society” is unlikely to convince somebody that it’s okay to kill in the name of it. At the same time same person can be all in for inclusion, diversity etc. Isn’t this the perfect example of perfect being enemy of good? Radicalization is going to make this and similar groups naturally fall into opposition if you keep forcing them out (and generate a lot of “martyrs” for the cause too). How is radicalization good here?

About compromise: I’d quote you my brother’s law professor:”What is the purpose of the law system? Justice? No! It’s to maintain the order, the system which makes everything work. It is to ensure predictability.” So are the compromises on eg. bodily autonomy morally justifiable from any perspective? No, both sides hate it. Both sides have politicians that want to be as realistic as possible to sway voters, change being just a side effect of the process.

I think what you propose (being more radical) is actually already slowly being implemented (again, by both sides) - problem is if both went with full on “we’re sure we’re right, we’ll make no step back” there would be a revolution or a civil war (no step back means also rapidly escalating reactions from opponents) and no one really wants that in political establishment or… any establishment really. Revolutions usually end in big changes one way or the other and if you’re already in establishment why risk it?

Thanks for sharing, I’ll check out XMPP too - last time I checked was 10 years ago :D probably a lot has changed

Why the switch to XMPP btw?

You’re proposing the progressive crowd to be more radical - do you have any views/proposed solution for people that do not see your way and are unlikely to - e.g. radical pro-life people (that tend to stick with right side on economic/education policies as, well, their world view doesn’t fit good with the left… even if some would gladly vote for more progressive economic policies).

So in your “ideal” scenario, which is it: a) No place for them in academia? I.e. force your will b) Let states decide? E.g. California implements some vanguard radical DEI policies while eg. Texas/whatever does it’s own thing and migration/ratings do the job. c) something else?

I share your sentiment however despite the “looks” the actual line does not matter much. It’s about what you have to do to gain rights. Is traveling across some line and being desperate enough to grant this person rights? (Like right to work/live in some community/country)? Or are some additional hoops needed? If they’re needed why should anybody allow other people rights just for traveling across the line? Isn’t it unfair to these who spent years of work trying to go through proper procedure? Maybe it’s okay if somebody is desperate? But then what is the measure of “desperate” - it’s a pretty unclear term.

That’s a great example - makes me wonder who actually liked it in the first place to sell it - my boss, his boss and basically everyone I knew hated open space. Where did this scourge originate?

You may as well do meth