Can you elaborate on the Gripen?

Edit: my ore-coffee dyslexic ass read just like the Gripen.

I fully support Canada getting manufacturing here…

I think the problem is your second assumption of “will continue releasing sources” is the one to fail.

Your going to be dissapointed then.

He’s very toxic.

He has gotten help

That being said, I still love the guy. But he is a known hot head.

Wlep there it is…

I mean I’m still not touching it with a 10 foot pole featuring me beast, but hey, YouTube do YouTube.

I’m off by 4 years, and I’m ony phone so I could t both see the picture and reply. Sue me.

They stopped making them because everyone laughed at the last one with will smith.

If one is coming, it’s going to be AI slop. But I doubt it.

Okay so half decade forgive my memory.

Point stands, there are no new ones.

Rewinds haven’t been produced in like a decade

Half a decade *

I wanted to be right about rewind being dead to badly I guess.

I haven’t used apple tv in a few years, but like, swiftfin worked just fine for me??

Your just the “yet you participate in society, I am so smart”.

Go troll somewhere else if you have nothing but garbage nonsense.

“what if I change the material facts of the case that lead to this”

What are you talking about?

Solar flares come and go in ~11 year cycles. So strong solar flares are common now (we’ve had a few this past year) but go dormant for a while at a time.

Disclaimer: it’s been a decade since I did my undergrad in physics.

Its called entanglement. Meaning two things are quantum linked to be the same state. In this case the dots. This is done without any physical link between them. That’s what makes this teleportation.

So what happens is both sides are in a quantum state where each dot is both 0 and 1. But importantly when measured they will produce the same result. The other effect is what you do to one dot, you do to both.

This is where I get fuzzy.

The idea here is to have one dot in the computer and one dot to observe outside. You do the physics in the computer to compute the result, then observe the dot outside to see the result.

You still haven’t explained the incentive, just postured that it must exist.

Sure, if your physically able to do it all that is.

Things like these are important to disabled folks.

Because libertarians are the first to remove legal protections in the name of small government. This isnt a blanket rule, more anecdotal than anything. But the ones I’ve managed to find and interact with all want to remove all sorts of legal protections.

The party doesn’t seem to represent those that I’ve interacted with. I get what your saying, but that just doesn’t match with who I’ve interacted with.

Okay so here’s where I interject more opnion than above.

libritarians miss the forest for the trees. From your opinion above you say fiscal responsibility. But you deney the help that social programs provide, and actually benift the economy. Poor people spend stimuls checks locally more than higher income brackets for example. Government serves people, not commerce.

You say the open source line, and then apply it to a project that doesn’t value those values.

Free as in freedom comes without restrictions like commercial use.

If that low bar of source avaialble (last I checked you have to request the source). That’s fine.

But for a lot of FOSS people its not because it means you can never learn from the code, and apply it in your paying job. Or in your own project that suddenly gets big. Then suddenly someone is knocking demanding money.

Its about the community as much about the code.

Yes, however those aren’t “copy left” licenses like AGPL whose defining feature is the owner not holding copyright

Once you go copy left, you need everyone’s consent to change the license.

The MIT license is the creator owns the copyright, and any changes you contribute are licesned under the sam MIT as the project.

So to go from MIt -> anything only requires the consent of the project onwer.

Any copy left (like AGPL) license -> anything requires every contributors consent.

It is possible, but practically infeasible at scale.

I’d have to read more about AGPL, but IIRC GPLv2 says you must license any derived code as the same license.

IANAL, just someone whose looked into this before.

Copyright.

AGPL says that the original author of any chunk of code owns the copyright to it.

Meaning to change the license you have to get every copyright holder (read every developer who has contributed code) to agree to the license change and give over the copy right.

Edit: to be clear, I don’t like FUTO either. As a visible minority, I know libertarians are not my friends. But a copyright rug pull is hard to do in immich.