Deadass she looked bored beforehand and kinda happy after
Oh shit, also important and I forgot to mention, don't confuse it with Fullmetal Alchemist without the Brotherhood part. Brotherhood was made after because the original adaptation was a huge disappointment to people
If it fails to introduce itself to you, try jumping ahead to when the Greed character is introduced, the writers put more thought and research into the topic than we ever will in our nostr thread
I'm actually not sure her and I are a good conversation match. My conclusion at this point is that we're so far apart on metaphysics, and her worldview is so colored by her metaphysics, that we can barely talk about anything.
I said as much here:
note1xmqaq50w8jv4h3fqs677nredajrxn573l0sd05prh0vhczt98z3saxytzn
https://primal.net/e/note1xmqaq50w8jv4h3fqs677nredajrxn573l0sd05prh0vhczt98z3saxytzn
I heard all that but I believe the truth is you're both trying to get more rational.
The copywrong license loses in court every time, but just sucks for the court system's ability to influence humans outside the courthouse
The copywrong license pretends to care if Apple uses your code, but actually forces apple not to care if you use their code (or brand name or whatever) after they use yours. (With Apple just being an example)
You ever seen Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood? It posits that greed has an alternate form where instead of mixing with the ability to lie to oneself it mixes with the ability to be honest and true to oneself and it suddenly has the potential to be virtuous. It's lit 🔥
I wonder what you think of the license I wrote and we use at my company (our company is called Vaporware)?
https://github.com/deathtothecorporation/vaporware-license/blob/master/LICENSE
A court would probably find your work under this license is functionally the same as public domain, except maybe the part about changing the name means you're keeping rights for a particular branding.
That's pretty good, public domain is like the pure legitimate version of what Stallman was going for anyway.
GitHub might not allow a copywrong license to stay on their site, at least not forever, since it prohibits them from doing so; except a court would actually probably rule against the license and say the code can be used, which is exactly how the copyright system falls apart. Apple uses your code and violates your license and instead of losing a lawsuit against Apple where you got your hopes up about the court not lying, you're like "yeah, courts don't recognize the copywrong license, nothing we can do about it except rebel against the courts and use Apple's proprietary code without their permission too"
If she takes you off mute, it probably wouldn't be to keep insulting you. You low key know she's a worthy conversationalist 👀
I think the concept of greed has religious roots where it's a struggle to recognize sufficiency and be satisfied by it. Baked into all humans, an urge to have more than whatever we have at a given time, which mixes with one other flaw, our ability to lie to ourselves, and the result is we can have a hard time appreciating what we have.
Of all the ideas from religion, this one's seemed the most well-established and proven in real world observation from my anecdotal experience. It seems as though if there is a conscious creator of the universe, they've balanced this to be challenging for us and imbued magical meaning into the challenge.
Gave it a look.
In the context of Stallman's "copyleft" licenses (pretending "right" was a direction or a political orientation), "copywrong" would be licenses which do not grant any permission.
These would allow open source software to flourish freely with the copyright system falling apart.
Instead, Stallman made a dumb pun and helped uphold a system that says Apple and Microsoft are allowed to use any code they want and use violence against anyone who tries to use code they say is theirs
Stallman has always been sus
Why did he call his opposite of copyright "copyleft" when the correct thing would have been "copywrong?"
That's not a pun, it's the core reason you can't trust him if you think about it
Posts can be signed with a special non-cryptographic method but there is a weakness at determining if they actually come from the npub they say they do
3 hours of it was spent pulping wood and blueberries turning them into small sheets of paper and some ink
I built a client from scratch in 4 hours but it's just some sheets of paper with hand written text on them
Remember, nostr is an open protocol anyone can implement however they want
What if homeless but not broke ðŸ§
I'll bite but I bet it won't hit the same as if she continued the discussion with you
You're basically relying on the assumption trickery doesn't exist to justify the idea greed doesn't exist, as far as I can tell?
I used to be a delivery driver. People paid for the food I delivered, including the cost to pay me as an employee delivering it, plus tipped me. Meanwhile, I was polluting the environment with an entire car just to move food around safely because other people with entire cars wouldn't let something like a motorcycle be safe. I trust the food I delivered was of decent quality by this shitty era's standards, but via pollution, my job was to kill my customers and everyone they love while relying on them not knowing I'm doing that so they not only pay me, but tip me as well. I didn't tell every customer "you really shouldn't tip me, I'm taking away your food in the long run, it's a tragedy that you couldn't cook for yourself." I don't expect delivery drivers to tell me that every time they deliver to me either. And I also tip them worthless dollars hoping it will help them survive. Doesn't mean I think they're good people or adding anything to society. They're random people who may or may not be good but are currently unable to find a way to survive without being part of the military industrial complex's petrodollar economy.
Dollars are worthless pieces of paper anyway, maybe in an economy based on something valuable it would be more likely for the economic exchanges to reflect value and people would be better at accurately assessing value instead of clinging to delusions.
I'm sure you're more open to learning than laeserin realizes. I think she sees you have disingenuous thoughts and she assumes you're always willing to argue disingenuously but I notice you might actually be trying to get out of the habit. If you respectfully keep suggesting you'd like to try talking to her my gut feeling is she's the type to try again