Reminds me I caught my first one in the wild the other day. Note the replaced bumper, and still visible damage to the front left. I'm sure they have insurance /s

"Half our students are below average!" kinda vibes - KDR necessarily means that for every person with 1.5, there is someone with a 0.67, that's just how the math works. If I'm anywhere near 1.0, I'm happy.

Absolutely, it's a fabulous engineering challenge, to make it work well on a hobbyist grade 3D printer with ordinary materials. Also a lesson in using the right tool for the right job (some parts are just better off milled or bought OtS)

I used to frequent the FOSSCAD IRC ages back as a teen. This started during the post-Liberator panic, there were talks about regulating 3D printers to not allow printing guns, etc. Designed a few things, never actually printed any of it myself, but some others did. Really got me into engineering before I exited the scene, led to actually pursuing an engineering career. Was surprised to see 3D printed gun videos so openly shared, it was pretty underground for ages there.

I tried this myself, but it's hard for a few reasons:

• Messaging actually takes more time (defeats some of the purpose)
• No banking apps (inconvenient)
• No proprietary 2FA (nonstarter for work reasons)
• No "let me Google that real quick" moments (comparison shopping when in store, looking up a phone number for a restaurant, etc.).
• Their cameras universally suck

Some "dumb" phones still have a web browser and such, so you're not completely out of luck, but it's painful.

I have 35mbps upload from the ISP, and limit each stream to 8mbps. This covers direct streaming all my 1080p content and a 4K transcode as needed.

I'm out of the loop, anywhere I can read more about what's going on?

If they are "clearly not working", why can't you prove it?

Can confirm, tastes good. This was in Papua New Guinea, the dog was donated to a function to be eaten because it kept killing people's chickens.

What's funny is some tribes will eat dog and not cat, others eat cat and not dog, and they both think the other is weird for their choice.

I'm biased (a Christian myself), but the Christians I know are not violent, probably because they're at least half-decent human beings who at least try to practice what they say they believe (which doesn't include deepfry oil).

I know a handful of nuts, some claim to be Christian, some don't. Of the ones that claim to be Christian, none I know actually seem to live anything close to what they spout off. As a general trend in my circles, they're the loudest about their faith, the most political/patriotic (either side, but usually right leaning), and most likely to force their beliefs on others. The ones that don't claim to be Christians are pretty similar, just less hypocritical (opinionated, but not religious).

The issue is that anyone can claim to be a Christian, and as a Christian it's not for me to judge and say if they really are genuine or not.

All that to say, this article is a great example of not living out a good Christian faith, at all.

While I'd prefer just using the MIT license if at all possible, I do see a case for this when the alternative is a worse license/not open source at all.

If I'm running a software company that needs to make money to pay myself and/or employees, I need to preserve my revenue stream. No income = not eating, so the main option is it keep the software closed source.

But what if I don't like being closed? Maybe my software would be useful to hobbyists as well as my clients. But I've got commercial competitors who, if they had my software without restriction, would profit off of my work and actively eat into my earnings. Maybe they undercut my rates for providing support, so we'd be racing to the bottom. Maybe they integrate it directly into their competing product, so clients go to them and not me because they can get my solution and whatever else the (closed) competitor offers.

So this license offers a middle ground. If someone uses it in a way that doesn't impact my income, that's fine! I wasn't doing it anyway. Maybe it's a good idea though - if I start doing the same thing, the competitor is allowed to continue using versions of the software released up to the date that I begin competing with them. From there on, they are free to modify the software themselves, but no longer use updates to the software - they will need to further develop it themselves, the same way I do. We're on equal footing now. They will be able to take any updates to the software 2 years after I release them, so they're not entirely stuck. If my software moves slowly, this may not even be a big deal. It gives me incentive to develop and maintain my software better than the competitors, rather than resting on my laurels.

Basically, it's a protection against the greed of other companies who could use your work in competition with you without contributing back, while still (eventually) making the code open source. If your project grows to be primarily community driven, I don't think it's a good license at all, as you'd be benefiting from other people's work, and it isn't fair to them to claim business rights. But if a company pays for the vast majority of the work on the software (like, 90%+), I feel like it's a decent option.

You always know politicians are crooked, but this is just staggeringly incompetent.