One of Trump's biggest advantages is his enemies drastically over-react to things and end up looking stupid.
GPL violations are a serious business and Mastodon is well within their rights to ask for the code to be released. But the business hasn't even opened yet and they're already waving permanent revocation around. This sort of aggression in enforcing the GPL may actually be unprecedented.
But it is correct. I would love for all violations to be policed like this. I didn’t take time away from my family and life for someone else to profit. I did it ONLY because I’d knew what GPL would enforce.
The business opening or not does not matter here. GPL is enforced on the moment you publish underneath that license.
OK? As far as I know, AGPL only requires code to be provided upon request. If people in the beta test have not requested the code there may not be a violation.
What exactly are you hoping for or missing? No actual harm has been done to anybody. If "Truth Social" was online for real it would be different, but now? The beta users presumably didn't mind that they didn't have the source code.
I think the Mastodon people are merely hoping they can stop Trump, they are not really concerned about getting the source code.
GPL does not differentiate between beta and not. You use GPL code - you release anything build on top of it. Simple as that. Anyone can request a copy of their source and should get it. Doesn’t matter if it’s in beta or not as long as it’s licensed under GPL. Even if it’s internal software. Don’t like it - go build from scratch and use some other software but don’t break the license agreement just because you are lazy and can’t be bothered to write your own code.
I don't think that's correct. Unless you publish it, you don't have to release anything. Otherwise it would be madness.
Also my question was more about why that specific concern about the license - why did you pick AGPL instead of GPL and why do you care so much about that specific case?
Yeah I remember all those lectures about over reaction and we ended up with an insurrection and an entire half of our country convinced an election was stolen.
> [snark]Almost lost the Republic on Jan 6th to a whole lot of shoving.[/snark]
Snark aside, the danger of Jan 6 was not shoving - It was people deciding to do the wrong thing in the name of gaining power.
The insurrectionists who organized January 6 (yes it was planned) were at the Willard Hotel in a number of suites they called a "War Room" (yes, their words). The entire plan was to delay certification of Joe Biden's victory to give state legislatures time to arrange an alternate slate of electors to be sent to the Capitol. This delay was achieved via a violent mob directed at the Capitol. A delay happened by it wasn't long enough, so the effort failed.
But it almost succeeded. They wanted to push Pence in the direction of refusing to certify Biden's 2020 win, thereby kicking the decision to state delegates, of which Republicans controlled a majority. Obviously they would have voted for Trump over Biden.
This is how autocracy happens in America: a president who loses both the popular vote and electoral college, appointed by a political party on the basis of fraudulent claims of fraud. No elections will be trusted by either side after that happens.
I’m sorry but I chuckled a bit. In my last company our corporate legal used to ask us not to call our conference room the “war room” - it might imply anticompetitive actions. I rolled my eyes but apparently I was wrong in thinking that was a ridiculous statement.
And the fact that the Democrats argued that Trumps 2016 election and Bush’s election was “suspect” if not “fradulent” doesn’t do much to bolster your argument.
> No elections will be trusted by either side after that happens.
This is the Democrats fault. Their shoe-in candidate lost and they spent four years bleating that Trump was illegitimate and failed to prove it with a far reaching investigation. _That_ is where trust started to be lost.
The Muller report and Senate Report on Russian Active Measures (I posted links earlier, but you've already read them I assume: https://hackertimes.com/item?id=29080495) show that Trump and Russians coordinated efforts, made secret deals, delivered on quid pro quo arrangements, and yes even shared information during the 2016 election. And they lied about it all, destroyed evidence, and obstructed the investigations into their activity. You can characterize objections to such behavior as "bleating", but it doesn't change the fact that the Trump campaign worked with Russian intelligence as they hacked the DNC. There is still no explanation for Trump's campaign manager handing internal campaign data to a Russian intelligence officer, other than collusion.
There's no theory presented here, just a list of things that happened according to the Special Counsel and Congress. There's no mystery about what went on, and yeah, it's also clear that no one cares. Because that's the world we live in now, and I'm okay with that. But let's just be clear about where we are right now: a campaign for President coordinated with a foreign power as that power was hacking the campaign's opponent in the election, and they lied about it to everyone. That's okay behavior now, because as you said, the FBI did nothing. The Attorney General read the report I linked to and concluded the behavior was perfectly normal. But that doesn't make the charges of Russian collusion a "lie", as some have spun the results of those investigations. If Trump's campaign handing internal campaign data to Russian intelligence officers isn't collusion, the word has lost all meaning.
I mean, this isn't even the product of some partisan hit job on Trump. This is the result of two Republican-led investigations. One, led by a fmr Republican FBI director appointed by a Republican deputy AG, who in turn was appointed by Trump himself; the other written by the Republican majority and chaired Senate Intel committee. It's really easy to dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory" or "witch hunt" as the then President tried very hard to call it, but Republicans and Democrats both agree on the facts in these reports. They are not lies. They are not conspiracy theories. And yes, they are also a nothing-burger, because the behavior is now normalized. That's how presidential campaigns will be run from here on out basically thanks to this whole issue, and no one should be surprised when Democrats do it.
I have to agree. They didn't explicitly lie like Trump did/does, but they (or at least, Hilary specifically) did repeatedly mention that they "won the popular vote" as if it was relevant - they wanted to imply the same thing, that Trumps presidency was unfair if not illegitimate.
I would hazard to bet that most of those people involved in the insurrection only did so because of the number of violent protests that were met with underreaction in the previous year.
Still, america is a nation of extremes, and if something doesn't go their way they're all very quick to jump to "its a conspiracy against us" conclusion. A union bound together by nothing is doomed to fall apart from the slightest push.
The previous election was also accused to be stolen. If you look at tweets, both parties had complete trust in election integrity when it fitted their narrative and it was a complete fraud when it was convenient.
Do you remember the Russian hackers?
Given how crappy USA election practices are (no voter IDs? mail ballot? workers counting ballots without witnesses?) I'm pretty sure there were instances of election fraud in both cases, it's just hard to establish how much it affected the result.
It's a shame that the parties don't think ahead. When one party pushes for better election practices, the other should roll over, because next election it will benefit them and this election it won't matter.
That is extremely hypocritical as the never-Trumpers claimed for 4 years Trump was an illegitimate President and continue to do so even after a multi-year investigation failed to prove any claim to that effect was true.
I agree with you. The following is my opinion of what happened, not an endorsement.
Trump's role in our history was primarily a f-you to the established players in both parties. He won because he made all the right people mad. And the more his enemies drastically over-react the more powerful he becomes.
But for all that superficial posturing, he accomplished very little of his agenda and generally ended up trying to play ball anyway. The anti-establishment game lasted until he entered the white House.
His primary accomplishment was building a base of angry people.
Strongly disagree. You have to remember democratic politics is about turning a massive ship in a new direction. Unless you’re willing to start shooting people democracy moves in increments.
I would say the US drastically changed a few ways: 1) the public’s perception of the media [Trump’s antagonism exposed just how partisan it is across the board], 2) the US strategy with regards to China [Biden seems to be quietly adopting many aspects], 3) a significant adjustment of tax strategy and offshoring of profits [it was a major shift in how offshore profits are treated], 4) healthcare regulations [hospital price transparency and drug pricing had some people shitting bricks and it’s just started].
Now you can argue those moves were bad, but to argue nothing changed is short-sighted.
It’s not that dissimilar to a large corporation. I’ve seen leaders (not even CEOs) push in a certain direction and it’s clear years later it made an impact.
> I would say the US drastically changed a few ways: 1) the public’s perception of the media, 2) the US strategy with regards to China, 3) a significant adjustment of tax strategy and offshoring of profits, 4) healthcare regulations.
These are ephemeral changes, the type that flap back and forth frequently with presidential changes.
That's why things like ACA are far more monumental - they're codified, much harder to undo.
Trust in media has been in steady decline for decades now.
States are actively implementing nullification of federal laws. Some blue states are illegal immigrant sanctuary states. Some red states are federal gun law sanctuaries. Marijuana sanctuaries abound. People in positions of power are openly discussing more nullification and even national divorce.
You don't repeal laws, you nullify them. The ACA is small potatoes in that regard. They're not coming for the ACA, they're coming for the whole union.
What you're discussing is nothing new. State marijuana decriminalization has existed for decades, states have selectively chosen to enforce immigration laws differently for even longer.
What state gun laws are intended to supersede or nullify federal ones?
None of this is new or shocking. It's largely the way the republic has operated from day one.
I count two. Regardless, but not the kind that has (or would have to) survive constitutional challenge. In four years they barely made a dent on ACA, and that was a critical part of the mission statement.
Either could be reversed, as has happened in previous administration changes. Our tax code and rates are pretty malleable, if the last forty years is any indication.
I don't think the primary concern of his voter base was advancing their political agenda. I believe the anger was the whole point, and they got it by the truck loads.
There was no reason to believe that they would get what they wanted policy-wise from a Democrat or from a different Republican candidate. The next best thing is to make all of the bad people angry, which they did get.
It's not like they would've complained if they'd gotten some of their policies advanced, but that was not the point.
The point was that he said things like "kung flu" and it drove the bad people insane. Or "I can't call Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas any more because she's not an Indian."
I have a hard time believing that the entire point was to temporarily bother people. I mean literally every president does this just by virtue of American partisanship.
I think the goal was a transformative presidency that cemented Trump as one of the best presidents. But he just didn't have the aptitude to pull that off.
The First Step Act was a major push towards criminal justice reform - something all parties claim they'll do but don't deliver on.
Also his tax reform led to lower and middle class families paying significantly less federal income taxes while at the same time increasing treasury deposits.
Tax reform and criminal justice reform were part of his agenda and those were accomplishments.
> I hope you're not taking his 2016 electoral campaign statements regarding what his agenda is at face value...
Is that a joke? What on earth would you judge someone on (with regards to their agenda) other than the commitments they make as a candidate?
I don’t care about whether someone accomplished a “secret unpublished” agenda, if it’s all revealed after the fact.
Obviously, I care about the changes made during the presidential term, but when it comes to “evaluating whether they fulfilled their agenda”, it seems farcical to say “I hope you weren’t actually considering the public commitments they made about their agenda”
He was an ok president, despite what the media say.
He didn't wreck the economy like democrats do, but he didn't cut spending which is the only sane thing to do.
We needed a Ron Paul, not Trump.
Unfortunately governments are a reflection of people and most people are pissed at the government. Trump didn't create angry people, he channeled the anti establishment sentiment like Berlusconi did 30 years ago in Italy.
Most likely, once they became the establishment the found out the system is engineered to be impossible to dismantle from the inside.
The only way out of this increasingly huge government is collapse.
Democrats effect on the economy is mixed just like Republicans, and the truth is that the president does not actually control very much when it comes to what markets are doing. If the economy is good they take credit for it and if the economy is bad they blame the last president if they were of a different party.
Government tends to grow under every administration because that's what all the incentives inside government encourage. You get what you incentivize.
Libertarianism is a political loser because a libertarian political platform would ultimately be about making politics and thus politicians less important. No career politician is going to really do that, and you can't get to high office without making it a career unless you're a fluke like Trump. I think a lot of people supported him for that reason, but unfortunately he was the wrong kind of fluke.
BTW the worst president of the last 100 years was not Trump. It was George W Bush for the Iraq war alone. Trump was obnoxious and might have been dangerous if he had more actual power, but he did not do anything to even approach the damage Bush did with that decision. I also doubt there would have been a President Trump had Bush not burned the US' reputation to the ground.
As painfully admitted by the comments here, it is virtually impossible for them to stop talking about Donald J. Trump and they have to even resort to censoring themselves as if he never existed.
So it just means that Donald J. Trump is in their minds 'rent-free'; forever.
I know a lot of smart, logical people who lose all sense of thought process when it comes to Trump. Not sure why people act like that. I would never vote for the guy but at least I can keep my head on when discussing him.
GPL violations are a serious business and Mastodon is well within their rights to ask for the code to be released. But the business hasn't even opened yet and they're already waving permanent revocation around. This sort of aggression in enforcing the GPL may actually be unprecedented.