First time I'm hearing about this. Interesting! There was also the option for non-weapon volunteering services, which is what I did. If I knew about THW and that the time would count as well, then I might have done that instead.
I hope Netflix can repeat their success from their movie streaming service by growing, supporting and maybe buying some indie devs. There is certainly a space between the $10-15 games and the $60+ games that has been explored in multiple ways but that has never really taken off. Maybe a subscription service can establish that space.
Well, the "pyramid scheme" + "technobabble" is not totally worthless, if it enables the investment of "literally billions of dollars" in otherwise totally unproven technology paths, doesn't it? Finally there is one area where people are really investing money into computer science! A cause to celebrate in my book.
We can learn a lot from this about distributed, decentralized systems and their resilience. Caching as much and as local as possible, while accepting that the processes might have no network connectivity is key. This way each node, and whoever can reach this one node, can work independently for long stretches of time.
Decentralizing control over resources is a pretty interesting idea!
Sad choice of name though. If you're anti something, the biggest your ideas can reach is the size of what you are against.
One might, for instance, explore the "embedded systems" world and how one wants to distinguish oneself from it as well. I would say, embedded + everything that runs a kernel is a bigger scope already.
So, what do you want to stand for instead of against?
Suggestion: Talk to the people face-to-face, and have a demo ready. If you tell them you want to do something for kids, in the demo there are free cookies, and besides offering the space they don't have to do anything, then the chance is almost 100% that they jump in.
PS: Some more traditional organizations don't even read their emails at all. So don't take it personally.
Well, if vaccination does not protect you for a lifetime, but only for a year or so, and a survived infection protects you for a lifetime, then getting infected while vaccinated should get you the +lifetime bonus.
And you will infect a lot fewer people, maybe zero, for the rest of your life, too. Should also help with avoiding future pandemics from this virus.
For me, this would be a point where I would fully rely on the experts for deciding how to implement that step and check if the plan is feasible. I don't recommend executing such ideas without syncing with authorities and experts.
That shouldn't stop us from brain storming, though, and allow experts to decide, if it's an interesting idea or stupid.
> The broadly-accepted imperative requirement is "vaccinated", as in "do not enter without a mask/etc unless you have been fully vaccinated". There is never a reference to "inoculated" (to wit vaccinated or had Covid and recovered).
As can be concluded from my post: Where I live vaccinated and recovered are treated the same, at least for now.
> Furthermore, there may not be "official documentation from your gov't and official health body".
Where I live there are laws what is permitted in super markets, restaurants, bars etc. And there are recommendations from the official health body that is responsible for the Covid topic. Often they overlap, sometimes they don't. But I think currently both agree on the vaccinated vs recovered point.
All that is said just to sync up on facts. I'm not trying to convince anybody of changing their interpretation or opinion.
If recovered people have longer term protection than vaccinated people (which is one possible interpretation of the headline's statement), would it make sense to first vaccinate someone and then expose them to the real virus, thereby generating the benefits with a much much lower risk or maybe even zero risk?
Who said after recovery you need vaccine? Probably you just need to share official documentation from your government and official health body with your family. Afaik, recovered and vaccinated are treated the same currently.
Please provide context. Assume that I have no clue what is going on. I know there's freenode, which provides IRC as a service since forever, and there is this new thing Libera. Otherwise I didn't have time to investigate anything.
Not affiliated with either side, but I saw that nobody mentioned the blog post by freenode about this topic yet: https://freenode.net/news/for-foss
Sadly, it doesn't mention what they actually changed in their policies or why. Just that in general they seem to feel tricked by OTHER parties kicking people from freenode channels for NOT going to Libera.
My take: Instead of participating in the flame war, the best approach may just be to help both sides keep a voice, document what happens, support reasonable decisions. As long as both sides block and kick users there are no reasonable decisions to be made. Personally, I probably won't even open either chat tool until things calmed down.
As a side note, I also want to remember the time when Matrix was trying to get users by building interfaces to other chat platforms and mirroring the communication in both platforms. That sounds like a reasonable decision to me.
I would read his statement slightly different: In that perspective, the actual game is to cheat and not follow the rules. Everybody should do it, but the banker has an advantage. Thus, everybody hates the banker for having an advantage in the actual cheating game.
I have to say, it's slightly funny to assume a multiplayer game that is entered by all the players with the clear and open intent to not follow the rules of the game.
What conclusions would you draw from that if you want to focus more?