The idea here, is that it is not a huge inconvenience for them to push just a little bit to become Free Software.

I would agree that for a lot of people Denis Villeneuve’s direction is rather sleep-inducing. I remember going with friends to see Blade Runner 2049 and the friends went to sleep. It is usually the case with atmosphere-heavy and subtext heavy movies. Another example of a similar director would be Nicolas Winding Refn. Who deliberately sometimes refuses to engage the audience. Instead you are stuck with a few minutes long closeup of the character thinking about something.

I think those kinds of films are not for all people. But those that love this aesthetic love it a lot.

IDK sometime it feels not enough to just share a link to a story. It feels like I need to make sure people know exactly how I personally see the issue at hand. Hell I made 2 projects each of which took me more than 3 years. So it is 6 years only for 2 projects. Maybe I’m just exceptionally megalomanian…

I was trying to make a filler that is somewhat related to the story at hand and that points the reader at a direction of some kind of philosophical discussion here. Like I was comparing my work to the situation in Georgia. And my personal experience to that situation. As to show how insane the whole thing really is. Maybe I over-indulged myself with the filler. Now I look at it and it is kind of funny to me that I wrote so much of it.

You caught me. I was trying not to smile while recording the voice section, but you can hear me smile a bit, because of how utterly round about the article is. I wanted to stretch the reveal as long as possible, because just saying it plainly would have been a Mastodon post. But I wanted an article. So I filled it up with a bunch of bullshit.

Richard Stallman very likes recursions. This is why GNU ( something he named ) is a recursive acronym. And GPL ( something he came up with ) is a recursive license.

I think copyleft was just something too clever not to try for Richard Stallman. But yeah, corporation are doing anything they can to get around it.

If they don’t want to talk to me. Then it’s fine. I wont talk to them either. I would work in a supermarket. They don’t want me to sign nothing at all. And I can do my software on my own.

My view on this all is something like this:

• Users should have their freedoms to use, change, share the program. Even if they are doing it for profit. Even if those users are corporations.
• Copyleft is useful to make it so when those who share, share, their versions of the same program is also Libre. It is not about protecting the developer. It is to insure the user still has the freedom.
• One is not required to share. So if I make a version of the program that works for me, I am under no obligation to give anyone a copy of it. ( But under copyleft, if I do, I need this copy to be libre )

So I can withhold giving away my copy until I get paid. Basically I don’t even release anything until I get what I want from the deal. And I can do that for every change I make. But as soon as I make what I wan and release it, everything is libre from the beginning.

I can use screenshots or videos to prove that I have a working piece of software. And tease what are the changes I made.

The question now is, can there be a platform to streamline this process?

legally binding non-disclosure agreements

I don’t sign those.

to help open source projects like gnu or copy-left licenses

Copyleft was not designed to protect the developer from corporations. It was designed to protect users from developers.

a big part of me is sad that i will never become rich like my current colleagues

I know this feeling. I was finishing my film Moria’s Race which is libre and will never make a single cent. And then I went to see Spielberg’s Auto-Biographical film “The Fablemans” and it literally broke me. The amount of evil I have to agree to do just to have a chance at something like this. Oh my god. It didn’t help to go see Avatar 2 right after that.

The worst is that a lot of people delude themselves that they are good. I don’t think Spielberg is a bad person. The messages in his films seem to point that he is firmly on the side of freedom. Though he never thought about copyright, for example, as being anything evil yet. And probably if somebody will point it out to him, his age is such that there is probably very little neuro-plasticity left there, and if he somehow justified copyright all this time, it will be hard to convince him otherwise now. Not even talking about how his whole career is basically holding on the fact that copyright exists.

To do something about this whole apocalypse, we need to change values. GDP has to go away! Something like a freedom score should replace it. That will already force governments to divert from stupid ideas like “chat control”. And perhaps will make them start supporting Free / Libre projects. And then of course, there should be ways to make money in Free / Libre to convince those who care only about how big their pockets are. Donations do not cut it. They are good, but they feel pathetic in comparison to what a proprietary alternative makes. There should be a way to make money without restricting freedom. Devices is a good start. Librem5 and PinePhone are amazing. Software is totally free. Maybe something like a reverse-crowd-funding could be implemented for simple software. Basically the changes aren’t even released to begin with, until people come and fill up a can full of money. Each can send a cent or a million dollars. But the idea is, the developer chooses how much will unlock the release. And since it is unlocked it is totally free. And to avoid proprietary versions, until it is unlocked nobody has access apart from the devs.

how can I do the math? Do you have any links… I documented the math I did on this article: https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/Surveillance_Harms_1000_Times_More_Than_It_Helps.md

😀

Are you the same Blender Dumbass 2.0 ?

I am the same blenderdumbass as in odysee.com/@blenderdumbass:f and as in blenderdumbass.org

how and when you know it’s a necessity

I did the math actually. And it seems like mass surveillance will only be justified if homicide rates are higher than 20% ( if 1 out of 5 people die in murder ). And only if surveillance actually stops all the crime ( which it doesn’t ) and only if there is nothing less problematic that could be used instead ( which there are plenty techniques, like normal regular investigation, where you ask people around on their own terms ). Basically the math says it isn’t justified by an apocalyptic margin.

As always, they use a mildly annoying problem and try to solve it with absolute apocalypse.

It’s proprietary.

A video about version 07-07-24 : https://peer.madiator.cloud/w/gGdUU84yreyB4f8zC269ir

Dani’s Race version 07-07-24 is almost released! https://blenderdumbass.codeberg.page/files/DanisRace_07_07_24/