abessman

joined 1 year ago
[–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Repeating it doesn’t make it true. As long as the code is released under a FOSS license, the development model doesn’t matter.

[–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute

Why?

the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it

Contributing something because you want it is how free software works.

[–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (4 children)
[–] abessman@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

DRM has absolutely nothing do to with this.

[–] abessman@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (6 children)

I will say directly that this model of governance is incompatible with the tenets of free software.

Which of the four freedoms does it fall short of?

[–] abessman@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Their existence is far more constant than heavily urbanized areas.

Certainly not. Moderately urbanized areas are a historical footnote. They came into existence less than a century ago, with the emergence of automobilism and cheap fuel.

Heavily urbanized areas have existed for millenia.

This is highly unrealistic. Most people do not want to be packed in tighter with other people, they want more space not less.

The alternative is that they stop existing altogether when personal automobiles become too expensive for the average consumer to own and operate.

[–] abessman@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

I’m talking about moderately urbanized places (which there are a lot more of).

Such places exist as a direct consequence of car culture. Their existence is not a universal constant; they can and must be turned into heavily urbanized areas.

[–] abessman@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago (5 children)

What kind of vehicle do you think usually pulls up to a loading dock?

Grocery stores inside cities do not have loading docks. Their goods are typically delivered by this type of vehicle to curb-side offloading sites during off-peak hours.

[–] abessman@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago (11 children)

18 wheelers are not last mile delivery vehicles and have no business being in cities to begin with.

[–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Putting peope in prison was not the point of my original post; preventing repeat dangerous drivers from harming more people was. I'm absolutely open to alternatives to incarceration.

Do you have some examples of what could be done to minimize harm to victims and, in particular, prevent future crime?

[–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

You’re contradicting yourself, immediately above you say mandatory prison sentence.

For driving after permanent license revocation. That could perhaps have been clearer; consider it clarified.

Let's start from first principles and see where we disagree:

  1. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
  2. That privilege, if repeatedly abused, should be removed permanently.
  3. Once removed, further driving must be disincentiviced, and if necessary, punished.
  4. The disincentive/punishment must apply to rich and poor alike.
  5. It therefore cannot be purely monetary.

If you disagree with any of the above, I'd like to know which, and why. If you agree with them all, what disincentive/punishment do you suggest, if not incarceration?

[–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The three strikes would not lead to a prison sentence, just permanent license revocation. If the driver in question continues to drive at that point, they have demonstrated that they are a danger to society and must be removed from it for the safety of others.

Further, just imposing fines for unlicensed driving would effectively make it legal for rich people to drive recklessly. That, if anything, would be reactionary.

view more: next ›