From a certain point of view - isn’t this exactly what happened here?

I often go into a Git worktree of one of my projects and mess around a bit to try something out. If I find it’s not working, I tell git to discard the changes with git checkout . and git clean -df. What I’m saying is exactly “on second thought, don’t do anything" - while what happens in practice is that Git restores all files to their HEAD status and removes all the new files that are not already in HEAD.

Of course, the difference is that I already have all the work I want to keep under source control, so these changes I’ve discarded really were that - just changes. He, on the other hand, “was just playing with the source control option” - so these “changes” he was discarding really were all his work. But Git did not know that.

These are not good boys

Downvoting in order to bring it below @whynot’s comment.

Small comfort: they still can’t physically force you like they can with biometrics.

You wouldn’t download a book?

Which is weird, because SovCits are a cargo cult who try to mimic the legal miracles top lawyers sometimes manage to pull off. Musk should be different - he does have access to these top lawyers who do have deep understanding of the law.

Unless Twittex’ lawyers got the same treatment the engineers got?

For Windows 11, it would be an ad for Hitler instead of just a picture.

XML is good for markup. The problem is that people too often confuse “markup” and “serialization”.

“Your brakes operation will resume after this 10s ad”

You are assuming here that I know what I want. What if there is no obviously correct answer, and even in the Everett branch that generates the optimal content for the file I’ll still think it can be improved and tell it to destroy the universe?

What if there is no correct answer?

I just use this:

#!/bin/bash

keep_generating=1
while [[ $keep_generating == 1 ]]; do
    dd if=/dev/random of=$1 bs=1 count=$2 status=none
    echo Contents of $1 are:
    cat $1
    echo
    read -p "Try generating again? " -s -n1 answer
    while true; do
        case $answer in
            [Yy] )
                echo
                break
                ;;
            [Nn] )
                keep_generating=0
                break
                ;;
            *)
        esac
        read -s -n1 answer
    done
done

Even when you are paying for the product you are still the product.

I’d argue it’s not the tent itself that sucks as much as the lack of access to things like toilet, shower, and electricity.

Find a camping store and steal a tent.

I won’t argue that corporations wouldn’t steal other people’s work given the chance, but being able to do this is hardly worth the cost of not having copyrights on their own material. A Disney/Pixar/DreamWorks/etc. movie is not a stand-alone product - it’s mainly a feature-length commercial for a franchise. No copyrights means that the corporation doesn’t get revenue from the the merchandise created and sold by third parties.

Charging the poor more is, first and foremost, stupid. Giving them bad products and/or services that will cost them more in the long run? That I can see. But you never want to charge them more upfront. You’ll always want to charge the rich more, because the rich have more money and are more willing to spend it (when it benefits them), and you want them to give you that money.

Joel Spolsky wrote a great post about this two decades ago (and it’s still relevant today). The idea is as follows:

Lets say you have two potential customers - one rich who can afford to buy your product for $2 and one poor who can only afford to buy it for $1. If you charge $1 you’ll be able to sell it to both of them and get $2. If you charge $2 you’ll only sell to the rich - also getting $2.

Joel says that if you find a way (e.g. - by creating different versions) to sell it to the rich customer for $2 and the poor customer for $1 - you’ll get $3. Which is more than $2.

You, on the other hand, suggest that it’s going to get offered to the rich customer for $1 and the poor customer for $2. But then the poor customer won’t be able to afford it. They won’t be it or maybe even steal it - either way you won’t get $2 from them. You’ll only get the $1 from the rich customer.

$1 is less than $3. It’s even less than $1. If you want to earn money - this is the worst outcome. Why do you think capitalists hate the poor more than they love money?