And? pfsense uses thousands of packages that they don't pay for either, that's the spirit of open source, I can't understand who post this on HN without understanding it.

@dang: Can we ban these comments? Lately they arrive like clockwork and bring very little to the comments, especially since it doesn't seem to be talking about anyone here.

edit: at the time of this comment I can't find any top post complaining like the OP is describing.

You are miss-understanding what open source means. It doesn't mean everything has to be free. Many companies are built on top of open source software which allows them to do exactly that in their license. You also don't know if pfsense sponsors packages or contributes code to the packages they are using.

It's the right of every open source software author to continue working on their software privately under a different license, and that's exactly what happened here.

Just because you are not happy that you don't have access to their software for free any more doesn't mean it's against the open source spirit.

Yep, and nobody had any qualms about it in this thread, which is why I find such posts to be tiresome to read.

> Just because you are not happy that you don't have access to their software for free any more doesn't mean it's against the open source spirit.

This is exactly what I'm complaining about, I never said I wasn't happy.

I'll say it, but the movie was straight up homophobic, the whole plot about him being blackmailed about being gay and that he yielded to it is just prejudiced, implying he cared more about himself than the war effort (it never happened in real life).

Backdoors are from national governments (Macron in France, Sunak in UK). Privacy stuff is usually from the EU parliament, elected by people proportionally but cannot propose laws, only vote on them.

Technology is very convenient when it's complex enough to find an excuse to fit your business objective (see manifest v3).

I was curious maybe if you had some thoughts on the more social aspects of the project? Did you feel it made it easier to hang out on a whim for example?

I'd definitely say it served the purpose. We didn't really do them on a whim, but once or twice a month on a regular schedule.

It was also great for networking -- as in, people, not computers. Whenever I met someone new I'd invite them to a LAN party. People would bring their friends. Made some good connections that way. Hope to make more in Austin once the new house is ready...

I can guarantee you that you'll be able to start some conversations based on a cool house like this! Personally, LAN parties were something I always wanted to hold more of but just didn't have many friends playing on PC while I was growing up. It's cool you've made it into such a central component of your home!

> "In 2021, Ipsos interviewed people in 27 countries spanning all continents on their sexual orientation and gender identity. For some countries the samples were weighed for representativity, but in others with less internet access, they skewed more urban. In this survey, 80% of people worldwide identified as heterosexual, 3% as homosexual, 4% as bisexual, and 1% each as pansexual, asexual, and other. Results indicated that significant differences in sexual identity have emerged between generations across the globe, with the youngest group, or Generation Z, being more likely to identify as bisexual (9%) than Millennials (4%), Generation X (3%) and Boomers (2%). Generation Z and Millennials were also more likely to identify as homosexual, with 4% and 3% doing so respectively, compared to 2% of Generation X and 1% of Boomers."

Sure, but then it may be less likely for those who do to "prefer to remain a bachelor." Heck, it was not uncommon even for gay men to get married back then.

My point is: we shouldn't assume that the only reason for men to "prefer to remain a bachelor" is their sexuality and in so doing assume all of those 10% of men are LGBTQ+.

> "[My Instagram account] has blown up to nearly 12K followers since October, more than I expected," wrote Avery when he first reached out to Ars Technica in January. "Because it is where I post AI-generated, human-finished portraits. Probably 95%+ of the followers don't realize. I'd like to come clean." (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/viral...)

The article goes own to say: "With Midjourney, anyone can pay a subscription fee for the privilege of generating art from text-based descriptions"

Google says 1k followers costs between $12-$30. Getting bots to follow you for three months seems pretty cheap... could this have been some kind of weird self-promotion or an ad for the AI? He felt so guilty that his first thought was to run to the media? This whole thing just seems off to me somehow...

Maybe I'm being too skeptical, but it seems like instagram is worse than other social media sites when it comes to shameless self-promotion, "influencers" who are basically undisclosed paid advertisers, fake accounts scamming people etc.