"They are no difference" and "Hence, they are the same." is contradicted by "morals are proto law" and "laws are morals solidified".

If laws are morals solidified, then morals are morals unsolidified. Solidified and unsolidified are differences.

If morals are proto laws, then laws are not proto laws. Proto and not proto are differences.

Differences between two things mean they are not the same. You can't even make your own argument that they aren't different without describing them as different. QED, they are different and not the same.

@TrayKnots I agreed to no such thing. It doesn't matter what makes something moral or immoral, that's a deflection.

The pertinent difference between morals and laws is that they are different and in fact not the same thing.

Two things can share similarities and not be the same thing. Laws are a formalized way to order society through official punishments like fines and incarceration. Morals are an informal way to order society through unofficial punishments like shaming and exclusion. They are similar things, but they aren't the same thing.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying writing is speaking, because written words are spoken words frozen in time. The latter may be true, but that doesn't make the former true.

Licenses work because they are a known quantity. If a person sees MIT or GPL or CC, they know what they are getting and what legal risk they are taking on. They know their obligations and restrictions and that there is some amount of legal precedent behind them.

If a person sees a custom license, they have none of that and have to trust on faith that the person who wrote the license knew what they were doing. No person that cares about the legal aspects of licensing is going to bother with that, commercial or non-commercial. The people that will bother would do so even if there was no license other than the automatic "All rights reserved".

As you say, new licenses have been created to address the desired difference between commercial and non-commercial usage. Go use one of those licenses created by a university or company as they were probably created by someone that knows what they are doing and more importantly, people know those licenses.

If you don't care about user freedom, then why even mention libre/OSS since user freedom is the entire point of the movement?

Custom licenses are cringe because they are almost always created by people with little to no knowledge or experience of how to properly create a license. It's the same reason it's cringe to roll your own cryptography library; if you don't have the expertise then you shouldn't be doing it.

If you don't want companies using your software, then a custom license will definitely solve that as no company is going to take on the legal risk of a random person's personally created license. However, you're also going to lose many OSS non-commercial users for the same reason.

Firstly, custom licenses are cringe. If you can't find a known license that does what you want, then you should stop and consider why what you're doing isn't already covered.

Secondly, if you're not a lawyer or at least someone with strong experience dealing with the intricacies of software licensing, then you shouldn't be writing your own license. Based on the casual tone and vagueness of your license, not to mention the complete lack of any waiver of warranty, not even the standard blurb, I'm guessing you are neither.

Thirdly, and getting to the meat of the issue, it's not libre, free as in freedom, if the entire point is to restrict how the software can be used and who can use it.

Lastly, asking how to make money from open source is missing the entire point. Open source is about protecting user freedom, not developer profits. If you want to make money, then be honest from the start and just sell proprietary software instead of trying to piggy back off OSS.

It's not surprising many devs are wary of rust when the toxic brigade pushing to have everything rewritten in it are the same toxic people that have been trying to shove their CoCs into every corner of OSS for the past half decade or more.

Doesn't matter how good or bad rust the language actually is, rust the community is composed of the last people any sane dev would want involved in their project.

About the only thing I agree with is that HTML isn't a programming language. Oh, and hot garbage is worse than garbage, so your tier list is ordered wrong.

Yea, not sure about the DotNet slight, Visual Studio has fairly good (and getting better) git integration and no self respecting DotNet dev is using VSC's electron garbage over the real Visual Studio.

On the broader point, I don't think young devs understand how version control as standard practice simply wasn't a thing until relatively recently. Sure SVN and the like existed, but it wasn't at all the norm like it is today.

Your senior definitely should get comfortable with git basics, but it's not that surprising to find a few that don't yet have that skill set. My buddy has been out of the industry for the past seven or so years and he hadn't even heard of git when he recently got back into the field.

Maybe you could turn bi or something, but once you've been gay, you are gay. You can't unsuck a dick.

I've been mostly retired for the last several years and just this past month I've had two old clients call looking for someone to fix the pile of crap they paid too much to have vibe coded.

Give it a couple years for the suits get tired of throwing money down the vibe well and there will be tons of work fixing all the crap AI wranglers shat out.

@whimsical Don't be mad just because some of us are still developers and not suits that can't do anything for ourselves.

@whimsical To each their own, but to me the point seems to be, you're supposed to be a developer, a project needs developing, so develop it. Otherwise, you're not much more than a manager sitting around with your thumb up your ass waiting for someone else to show up and do the actual work.

Are you that dependent on AI that you have to wait and can't just fix it yourself?

That 2020 thing was just NIST (and NOAA if I remember right) deprecating the use of the older survey foot/inch in favor of the official standard of the international foot/inch. That action didn't actually change any definitions, as in the USA the foot and inch have officially been metric based units since 1959.

There should be a checkbox controlling whether or not the default extension is added to file names without it. The checkbox should be enabled by default and changing it should persist across uses of the dialog.

No need to invent behavior when the decision can be punted to the user.

To directly answer the question, I'd say B, the expected output is the filename with the extension appended.

Phoronix can be pretty fun.

I get the sentiment behind this and can empathize, but the government has no business telling me or any other developer what they can and can't do with the software they develop. You don't like companies killing games? Then stop giving them money. Simple as.

About half the regulars treat this place like it's their personal blog or twitter account. They should absolutely delete their accounts and save future readers from seeing the mountains of spam they've barfed all over the site.

That's why the sentence you quoted and cut off started with "In many contexts", because it isn't trying to reference every possible situation, just trying to mention one common situation.

Using firefox right now and Shift+Arrow Keys moves around selecting multiple lines of text just fine.

@jestdotty You were complaining about everyone using "equity" these days, presumably in place of the more appropriate word "equality".

My comment was making a similar point about how everyone these days says "problematic" when they should be using "problem".

@retoor More or less, why wouldn't I be?

The app's lack of support for a certain data format is "problematic"? Well, if it ever becomes an actual problem, then get back to me and I'll look into it.

Recently messing with some html/js prototyping a project and spent a couple days trying to figure out why it wouldn't load a file.

Is the most frustrating debugging experience I've ever had in years. I've never been so mad, well, that is until I solved the issue and only got madder. It wasn't a bug, it was a security "feature" of the browser. Apparently at some point the browsers decided that a local file loading other local files is somehow a security risk and therefore I'm not allowed to do that.

I hate web development. I hate everything about it. Less frustrating, but still annoying, javascript projects that add a bunch of stuff to support Node, but don't bother including a simple "export default" support. I hate web dev so very very much.

@Fast-Nop A government's laws only apply to that government's citizens and people within it's borders. Those laws only apply to citizens in another nation if the two governments have made a treaty that states as much. There are currently no treaties that extend the GDPR beyond the EU's borders.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this since you're doing nothing but repeating your claim without any argument to back it up.

@Fast-Nop No, they don't apply. The EU may say that they apply, but they don't. The EU has no power or authority to dictate laws to anyone outside their borders.

If the USA declared that no car with a USA passenger is allowed to drive faster than 20 kph, would taxi drivers in Germany have to drive slower when transporting USA people on vacation? No, obviously not, because USA laws don't apply to people in Germany, just as EU laws don't apply to people outside the EU.

This is such a basic premise of the world; a nation's laws only apply to people within that nation's borders.

> It applies if you're doing business in the EU, which in the case of a website means that you have EU visitors

@lbfalvy No, that's not how the world works.

If I live in the USA (or anywhere else outside the EU), am a USA citizen (or citizen of anywhere else outside the EU), and my website is hosted in USA (or anywhere else outside the EU), then absolutely no EU rules, laws, or regulations apply to me or my site, regardless of where my site's visitors happen to be.

Again, this is the most basic aspect of how sovereignty, government, citizenship, and national borders work; namely that I am only subject to the laws of my nation, the nation I'm physically in, and the nation where my site is hosted. Third-party governments, such as the EU, have no say in anything I do.

This is the same GDPR written by Europeans that think they can dictate laws to the entire world. You shouldn't expect anything they say to make sense.

Obligatory reminder: The GDPR only applies to companies with a physical presence in the EU and does not apply to any person or website outside the EU, because that's how sovereignty and laws work.

Yes it does. The person that came up with the idea of package-private access scope should be shot into the sun and the person that made package-private the default scope for unmarked methods should be strapped to the outside of the rocket.