Communism is not concerned with “left” and “right”, bourgeois ideological categories. Communism is the political programme of the revolutionary proletariat, or the real movement to abolish the current state of things, etc. I have no more in common with the liberal politicians who call themselves “left-wing” than I do with a fascist, so it makes no sense to place communism along a linear scale like left/right where it is suggested that communism holds more in common with a political position the further “left” it is. And whether or not communists hold a certain view has no relation to how “left-wing” it is; for instance, in the US, they consider being anti-gun to be a “left” position, but communists are pro-gun.

Communism arises out of an especially politically conscious stratum of the proletariat, and is generated more broadly by capitalism itself, which creates the conditions for its own demise. If communism could only come from already existing communists then there wouldn’t be any communists anymore given all the massacres of communists throughout history.

Communists would not agree with you about politics working like a marketplace of ideas where each idea proponent has to convince enough people of their idea to get a foothold. We see politics as class conflict and communists coming from the militant working class. Capitalism creates the material conditions for a communist movement to arise, and communism will continue to spring up again time after time of suppressing, mass incarcerating, massacring, etc communists.

Finally, it is obviously a very reactionary take that anyone should be obliged to have children. There’s a reason why it’s mostly ethnonationalists who are big on that stuff… Doubly so if you mean actually creating children and not adopting existing children. It is incredibly misogynistic to expect women to give up our bodies for your fantasy of popping out “leftist” babies. Pregnancy permanently changes a person’s body, is often disabling, and humans have one of the highest childbirth mortality rates in the animal kingdom not accounting for modern medicine. Not to mention that even if your body popped back to normal after giving birth, it’s still fucked up to expect anyone to dedicate 9 months of their life to being essentially disabled and then go through agonising pain at the end of that 9 month period. Even if you only mean adopting children, those children have to come from somewhere, and implicit in that expectation would be the expectation for, primarily women, to have to sacrifice their health to produce children.

That is not how the world works. I am also not a leftist; I am a communist.

I’m a communist and don’t want children, I guess for related reasons insofar as I don’t think there’s any such thing as a “good parent” and that raising children in an atomised nuclear family structure will inevitably harm them. I know people will continue to have kids regardless, but I don’t feel comfortable being responsible for a child’s trauma. I also don’t think I’d be interested in having children even if we only consider selfish reasons; it sounds like a lot of stress and financial drain.

No? It’s the same amount of “strain” as doing two full OS installs of the different distros.

Ahh ok. I don’t plan to use docker, so hopefully that will make things easier.

I wanna give downloading some long (~10 hour) Spotify playlists a go, any tips for sldl? What was so hard about it if you don’t mind me asking?

Given the US adults I see on the internet, I would hazard a guess that they’re right.

In general if your OS is intact you can just boot into a live USB and chroot and reinstall grub, worst case scenario if you can’t fix it in a less destructive way.

cryptomount -a
insmod normal
normal

But yes, it’s super annoying. Especially if you mistype it multiple times and you have to type that in multiple times.

I never stated what was or wasn’t moral; I stated what was legal, and stealing is a legalistic term. How can you enforce property ownership, intellectual or material, without law, and legal rights to property?

For the record, I want the abolition of property and of law. I do not believe stealing to be wrong. “Stealing” can only be a legal category if you believe it to be morally neutral.

That definition also makes no sense. If I gift you a laptop I worked hard to afford and you use it, no sane person would call that stealing, even to those to whom stealing is a moral category. That is the same thing as someone using MIT code according to the licence. The original coder gifted the code to the public and said “I explicitly want you to use this however you like, under the sole condition that you credit me.” Just like if I gifted you a laptop I’d be saying “I want you to use this laptop however you like.”

Just break the law. You’ve not stated what the sentence is and it doesn’t sound very enforceable

I don’t see much of that stuff. I mostly subscribe to foss communities and I mostly see relevant stuff about foss and tech. Subscribe to communities pertaining to your hobbies/interests and your feed should reflect that

If that’s sincerely how you see plagiarism (ie allowing someone to use your work as part of their work without attribution) then all I can say is that I’ve never seen anyone else use the term plagiarism that way; and unless either of us knows of a survey quantifying how people use the term, that’s as far as we’ll get on that front.

Anyway, the conversation is still about BSD, and you keep avoiding the fact that BSD requires attribution. If you are using the Wikipedia definition then it does not satisfy

representation of another person’s language … as one’s own original work

Do you or do you not think that BSD/MIT is plagiarism? You seem to be clearly dodging the question. If you don’t think it’s plagiarism then there’s no major disagreement and we can end this conversation.

Ok, in that case your definition is inclusive of things which are not conventionally considered plagiarism. Ghostwriting is commonly looked down upon, but not considered plagiarism. A large part of a non-legalistic definition of plagiarism includes a lack of consent from the original creator; if you take a job as a ghostwriter, you agree to your writing being published under a different name. If I work as a developer for someone who wants to make their own app, say a YouTuber, and they publish the app I wrote as <YouTuber’s> app, most people would consider that perfectly normal and not plagiaristic, since the developer was paid for a service in which it was understood their work would be published under a different person’s name.

You are also avoiding the original question about BSD and MIT, and not explaining why that is plagiaristic. Do you still think they are plagiaristic? If so, how? Given that both the licensor explicitly wanted people to be able to re-use their code in proprietary software (i.e. consent/permission exists), and these licences require attribution (i.e. not only are you not taking credit for it, you are actively naming and crediting the original author).

Multivitamins don’t have much, if anything, by way of caloric value.

I don’t have a legalistic view of the world; I am saying plagiarism is a legalistic concept. For context, I support the abolition of law and of intellectual property. Plagiarism is a particular kind of violation of intellectual property law, and without IP, it makes no sense. You still fail to define a plagiarism outside of the law, and you also fail to define a plagiarism that does not violate MIT/BSD. MIT/BSD both require attribution. You cannot claim MIT/BSD code written by someone else as your own without breaking copyright law.

No, actually, plagiarism is a legalistic term. If IP law did not exist, neither would plagiarism.

And if you give someone permission to use your IP, and they go ahead and use that permission, it is not plagiarism neither legally nor by any colloquial understanding of the term. That is what happens when someone uses BSD or MIT code in their proprietary software. It is explicitly allowed, by design, by intention.

without attribution

BSD/MIT also don’t allow you to not attribute the author of the BSD/MIT code, so that doesn’t even make sense. You are perhaps thinking of code released public domain, in which case, again, the author specifically chose that over BSD/MIT, and the main practical difference is not needing to give attribution, so that must be what the original author wanted.

I know. It’s a verbal shorthand.

You could write a userscript to maintain a blacklist with eg greasemonkey

Just direct it into a file, read the script, and run it if you’re happy. It’s just a shorthand that doesn’t require saving the script that will only be used once.