For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I’m doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I’m after, which is good because it’s significantly less fun than it used to be.

Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.

Condolences on your loss.

Depends on how you define ‘cost’ I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn’t worth it for you, which is fair.

Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.

What if the life I’m imagining I’m protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn’t scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.

That’s a win win right?

Interesting, thank you for taking the time to write all of that up.

Do you have any information on how easy the resumption of puberty is after that sort of delay?

It never occurred to me that this was possible and I’m interested in how it might work.

Labels aside, the only thing that post contains is a personal opinion, a personal anecdote and then an unspecific reference to something that may or may not exist.

Calling that an argument is a very generous interpretation.

The overview had no mention of a lack of support for “not transitioning” it’s certainly possible I’m missing it or it’s in the full report (which I’ll read when I get a few minutes).

One mention of the need for corresponding levels of support for de-transitioning and some mentions of increased support for other issues alongside the gender based ones.

It sounds like OP had a specific section/sections in mind, if this is indeed the report they were referencing I’d appreciate some indication to which part they were referencing specifically.

“The overview didn’t mention it, but its somewhere in this 232 page report” isn’t the most useful when trying to understand where someone is coming from.

The UK has recently done research on the matter and realised that children were not getting the support required for not transitioning.

Citation?

Ah. OK. Thanks for clarifying

Also levels for fecal matter in most things that come from agriculture.

Milk is weird, I don’t disagree, but governmental regulations on levels of “safe contamination” isn’t a milk only thing.

I was genuinely asking because it wasn’t (and still isn’t) clear that that’s what they meant.

The dairy farm thing makes sense.

Other than cat milk, possibly? I’ve honestly no idea.

But " just eat/drink plants " will kill a cat right?

You mean cats? Are they not obligate carnivores?

I mean, yes? That’s a good summation.

The part where you get to call something “open source” by OSI standards (which I’m pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.

Don’t want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn’t adhere, because that’s how commonly accepted standards work, socially.

Want to make an “open source 2 : electric boogaloo” licence , still no problem.

Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.

Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn’t adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.

To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.

Much like the “true” ¹ open source licences and the other, “closely related, but not quite legit” ² variations.

¹ As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI

² Any other set of standards that isn’t compatible with ¹

edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable

“It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s wrong”.

I think it’s more “It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s not open source, don’t pretend it is”.

The “wrong” part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn’t to gain some advantage. I’m this case community contributions.

There’s not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.

The book is great as well, there is also a prequel book “The Boy On The Bridge”

Brazil (1985)

That’s reasonable

it’s Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes

I don’t know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.

Think headphones jacks don’t cause suffering at some point in the chain?

Not that I’m disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.

Does it assume that it’s generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don’t claim otherwise, it’s cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.

Like “Horrendously harmful Apple” or “Mildly harmful Colgate”

A bit hyperbolic perhaps.

Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I’ve occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.

Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of “The good place”