That explanation runs counter to my experience with VC-funded companies, marketing budgets, and running in the red in general. Trying to hit as much of the total addressable market as possible means burning money. Notice how I expanded and included discounts? You don’t even get a 5% off code. Framework is making a profit so they can lose margin on a low percentage (if they’re not making a profit then there’s no reason to not throw away more to get closer to TAM anyway).

Board games run in the thousands for some of the bigger ticket items. I’m not sure you understand either market. I regularly crowdfund packages that are more than at least 25% of the Framework prices I’m skimming now.

You’ve done a great job summarizing the bad things they’re doing!

Game promos are usually expensive long-term because they’re produced in limited batches.

Most board game companies run off Kickstarter. Your distinction doesn’t really apply because it’s not normal to get external funding. Framework just hit their Series A which, usually, includes money for marketing and running in the red. Board game companies usually can’t run in the red.

I thought that there was no way this was unpaid and that the ambassadors would get Framework tech. Nope. You have to already own it. Doesn’t even seem like it comes with a discount even?

I am a product “ambassador” for several things in the gaming world. I get access to new things earlier and at a discounted rate. I get free promotional items that actually have some value. I sometimes get a per diem if I do certain events. I feel valued. I don’t get that vibe at all from this.

don’t Instagram your crimes

I thought it was jiff

Part of this is because the article’s author pushes a lot of sensationalist content to drive traffic to their Rust book(s). I remember similar articles several times over the last year, at least one of which was a thinly disguised ad for the Black Hat Rust book. That doesn’t mean the author is wrong, necessarily, but it does get annoying after a bit.

It wasn’t obvious because I’m not quite sure why someone would suggest using software that both needs regular updates and will never get any more updates because those updates along with good faith open source contributions have been moved behind a paywall.

Which one? The deprecated one without updates? Or the paid one that’s basically RustRover?

PyCharm and IntelliJ Community don’t have commercial restrictions. I’m still pretty anti-RustRover given this and the whole bait-and-switch where they turned the open source Rust plugin into what is now a closed source, paid editor. JetBrains still had done nothing to ameliorate this.

That’s fair. I don’t disagree with licensing comments necessarily. I think users doing it to provide the basis for a legal argument is fine. I think my pushback comes from my lack of trust in any of these users actually acting on their license which could be construed as victim-shaming. I’m hung up on the follow-through which careful analysis like yours really highlights.

Calling a license by anything other than its name and stated purpose is something I’d dare to call mislabeling. If CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 decides to add “anti-commercial-AI” then and only then is it not mislabeling. That’s like me calling the US copyrights of the books sitting next to me “anti-bitfucker” licenses. They have nothing to do with you at this point in time so it is misleading for me to claim otherwise.

While you are correct that lemmy itself does not add a license and many instances do not add a license, it’s not as simple as “the user notifies [you] must abides by [their] licenses.” Jurisdiction matters. The Fediverse host content is pulled from matters. Other myriad factors matter. As you correctly pointed out, there is no precedence for any of this so as I pointed out unless you’re willing to go to court and can prove damages it is actually useless.

I feel like a better analogy is someone who signs their text messages which is a more recent problem than people with obnoxiously long forum signatures.

They’re mislabeling the license too. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 has nothing to do with “anti-commercial-AI.” It provides some terms for using content and, in theory if OP is willing to take someone to court, should provide some basis if the license is being abused. Until there’s actual precedence, though, it’s debatable whether or not sucking up CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 content is a breach of the license. For it to actually matter, someone needs to demonstrably prove 1) CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 content was sucked up by AI, 2) it was their content and it was licensed at the time, 3) the terms of the license were violated, and 4) other legal shit that will pop up during the course of the litigation. “Someone” has to be someone with deep fucking pockets willing to go the distance in many international jurisdictions.

I like how simple it is. It’s made distrohopping very, very simple for me over the years. The only pet machines I have are my actual dev boxes. The rest are cattle I manage with other tools. Galaxy has also made it much simpler to consume other Ansible which used to be really annoying.

I’m on the fence about Nix. When I first saw years ago it was yet another package management system. I’ve seen enough interesting things with it now that I’ll probably try it out the next time I want to rebuild my configs from scratch.

I really like Ansible and have used it for my personal dotfiles for years. I don’t think it’s a silver bullet and I’m aware of a lot of the criticism. Containerization or immutable infra solves more production problems so I don’t really use it much at work.

At least in the devops/SRE circles I work in, we know there are different tools for different jobs. While we might fight about which is the best, I haven’t seen the ossification you’re describing.