Even if you could, Linus Torvalds is not a fan of the v3 license.

Why not?

The Free Software Foundation explicitly forbade tivoization in version 3 of the GNU General Public License. However, although version 3 has been adopted by many software projects, the authors of the Linux kernel have notably declined to move from version 2 to version 3.

How come Linux doesn’t use GPL v3?

I wouldn’t say it’s truly decentralised in its current state.

Should the government collect taxes on the buoyant times but then refund them during market downturns? That would be a nightmare. No government wants to be on the hook for refunds during a downturn.

AFAIK Danish tax on stock gains/losses works like this. Stock gains are heavily taxed while stock losses give you a tax rebate.

It’s funny how it used to be expensive. In Danish we have a saying to say someone is poor if “they can’t even afford salt for their egg”, as if an egg is cheaper than salt. Because it actually used to be that way.

Yea it’s cool. Although, regarding sublinks, it really looks like the project has stalled.

Very strange that such a change could lead to such a problem, but sometimes databases are weird black boxes like that 🤷

Thanks for all the work!

What was the bug in the end out of curiosity?

It doesn’t really help for me, but the beauty of the fediverse is that it doesn’t have to. You can like PieFed, I can prefer Lemmy and we can both still talk :)

On the other hand, it has some weirdly opinionated features:

• Hiding downvoted comments (mob rule)
• Marking people with many downvotes as “low reputation”. I get it, getting many downvotes is a bad sign but I don’t think the software should try to make a ruling here, I think human moderators should look at the whole picture. It doesn’t make you a bad person that people disagree with you.
• Communities organized into “topics” - I’m not certain if these groupings are decided by the dev or the admin? Either way I find it a bit problematic.
• Marking certain communities as “low effort” and not counting “reputation” for those. I don’t feel like the software should be making this kind of value judgement.

most of the cost of [anything] goes to publishers, not the creators

My edit obviously. It does feel like that though. I pay Netflix, not the people making the movie. For games it is at least a bit better - I pay Valve (Steam) and the publisher but at least some of it goes directly to the devs. But it could be better still I suppose. But I’d honestly be okay if we got a Steam-like platform for series and movies where I could buy the ones I want without any subscriptions.

Uh, how? I mean you’d need to make it legal I feel like. But that’s never going to happen and I honestly don’t think that’s fair either. If piracy is legal, how would content creators actually be paid?

I get the sentiment but this is not really an option most of the time if you want to stick with lawful methods. For instance, I cannot watch most movies or TV series these days without a subscription to some service.

I just block most political comms, I don’t see too much of it I would say.

User blocking merely blocks their communities. You’ll still see comments from the instance and you’ll still see posts in other communities from their users. You’ll also still have their votes influence your feed.

Defederation is the more proper tool to use. Individual user blocking is not effective.

You mean you personally blocked them? You need to actually be on an instance that defederates them for it to mean anything. User blocking hardly does anything, it just hides communities from that instance, that’s all it does.

You really should join an instance that defederates from those instances. That is the way to actually “vote” on the fediverse, not via simple user blocking that doesn’t actually achieve what you think it does, as the other reply points out.

I mean, lead them to instances that defederate hexbear for starters? Seems reasonable anyway.

Sounds hollow coming from an instance that doesn’t even defederate hexbear.