I guess I’m just a little more pessimistic at this point, don’t actually know the specifics of their financials but assumed github had been operating at a loss the whole time. That’s pretty typical for startup stuff in general and especially so for “free” services, if it seems too good to be true it probably is type thing. I see forgejo’s transparency and ideological commitment to open source as a defense against that type of behaviour cropping up in the future, hence “feature not bug”. Like you said, it’d be trivial to host your private repositories elsewhere or for someone to spin up their own paid instance for commercial use. I’d be a little suspicious of what was keeping the lights on if someone directly replicated github’s model because, well… look how it’s going!

Pretty sure I was having a normal conversation with someone and you splashed in to call me out for something without a whole lot of thought. There’s no “threat”, none of this is that serious, I wish you peace and introspection

Someone might spin that up, but it feels unlikely. Github was always kinda subsidized as a power play on MS’s part, and now that it’s well established enough they’re squeezing it for ROI. An instance that doesn’t need your donations still needs resources to perpetuate itself from somewhere, I’d personally rather depend on infrastructure that was transparent about that (whether paid or donation based) than be treated as the product

My brother in christ that’s the exact line I was referring to, what else in the wide world of reading comprehension do you think I was talking about?

Interesting such an old, trite example went over your head. Classic for a reason and very true imo. Filament lightbulbs were engineered to burn out regularly and require replacement, that doesn’t make the point you’re going for. Broad spectrum antibiotics breed resistant strains and require new formulations, especially when aggressively marketed and overprescribed because more use=more money. Again not a great example. Vaccine development has historically been funded and promoted by government as a cost-effective way of maintaining a workforce, not exactly a shining endorsement of profit motive. I’m genuinely having a hard time believing you’re dumb enough to make these arguments in good faith and kinda done here

Where’d my other comment go? Editorial censorship takes this from “a really bad idea” to a super fucked up attempt at poisoning this beautiful place with the worship of wealth

I had a whole thing about my setup here, but it was more than I want to share. Short version, panels are cheaper, easier to deal with, and longer lasting than you think. Most manufacturers guarantee 80% capacity after 30 years, area covered is more important than max output, there’s no need to buy the whole thing at once, 3-5k no more than 1200 at a time over a few years can get a lot of people all they need

The perfect drug would cost exactly as much as a patient can produce while maintaining themselves. This is not an original or hypothetical example. Treatment is more profitable than cure.

Well, my original suggestion was to befriend a rancher… not an expert and can’t speak as to exactly how widespread it is (or even if this was legal I guess), but anecdotally all it took was asking around a little. Nice spot on a hill, few people/critters already buried there, felt right, cost nothing. Two generations in and I’d like to be a third. If that’s not widely accessible I wish it were, from this end I’ve never heard of a $7k human composting service and it sounds way crazier to me than just getting buried in a pasture

Hard pass on the core concept here. I’m really enjoying a community of people just posting because they want to, it’s like the internet I grew up with and loved. Why would would you want to bring in people trying to squeeze a buck out of that? Growth isn’t an inherently good thing

Energy (read: oil) companies don’t invest in “green energy” for the same reason pharma companies don’t research cures

What I have considered, though, is making parts of it open source, and keeping only the “secret sauce” proprietary. The open source parts would be stuff that could be used to build similar software for other niches of the same target industry, whereas the super specific niche stuff and all the regulation compliance stuff (much of which is just for that one niche anyway - other niches have different regulations) would be proprietary.

This seems perfectly reasonable and I wish you the best of luck. Just don’t expect anyone to provide the infrastructure for your proprietary secret sauce for free!

They would unplug our isp provided modem and take it to bed with them, so I tracked down another one from the manufacturer and copied the eeprom from theirs onto it. It was a simpler time :p

Porque no los dos?

Borders racist, nationalism bad

I’m old enough you have to replace “cracking neighbors wifi” with cloning our modem and “youtube” with funny pictures from irc homies, but same. Working around internet access restrictions was a milestone between fun things I could do with computers and how they really worked

That was somewhat facetious and self-aggrandizing, “cracking” something isn’t always possible or necessary. If your service was unique/useful enough, I would contribute to reverse engineering enough of that backend to replicate its functionality. More likely I’d just refuse to use it and support open alternatives

Unsolicited advice though, giving stuff away generates a huge amount of goodwill that can be way more useful and rewarding than revenue. Contributors instead of employees, love instead of money, place and purpose instead of points in your bank account. I’m not wealthy by any means, but I’m comfortable enough and haven’t had to buy a laptop since high school

Congrats, pretty sure “mom took away my internet” is the primary entry point for IT professionals

Where I’m at, a lot of the weed dealers have shifted to E post-legalization. You love to see it

Fuck your government, cover your roof in panels and enjoy. Simple as