![](https://lemmy.one/pictrs/image/b7851e03-2b33-4cfa-b610-cb5d4f51d9ce.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/zXqqvadAXQ.png)
Reminder that paying money is morally wrong and should be avoided when possible. Steal the consoles and pirate if you have to play the games.
Reminder that paying money is morally wrong and should be avoided when possible. Steal the consoles and pirate if you have to play the games.
it’s a marketing stunt not a logic-related problem
He might do like 2-5 deliveries per trip if they align.
It’s also a good filter for useful videos vs ‘content’.
Well, then you have to find another name for that kind of software and define it that way. I certainly would support such an effort, i.e. to make software available to everyone at no cost.
There’s no need to come up with new terms or change the existing ones. Free software is inherently free in price. And you can’t enforce paying for software without the restrictions put in place (e.g. drm). Here’s a quote from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html :
With free software, users don’t have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free.
Free software can have a price, but paying it is optional.
I meant that free software is inherently can’t have a price. Even if you provide source code only to your users, they are free to share that source code for free.
Thus there can’t be piracy because piracy of free software is inherently allowed.
And if you try to prevent your users from sharing the source either legally or with drm - you add restrictions to software, making it less free for your users.
The recent situation with RedHat provides good demonstration and example of this.
It’s free as in freedom, not as in free beer.
But you can’t have one without the other. Putting a cost on software is adding a restriction, thus making it less free (as in freedom).
Free software should be available to everyone, even to people who don’t have money to pay for it (poor third world countries, students, kids).
I personally believe, that you should pay for software that helps you earn money. For everything else - it’s everyone’s own decision to donate or not, based on a financial situation, beliefs, political position and what not.
Yes.
I love every single game these guys make, but World of Goo is definitely in my top 10 games of all time.
I can’t even believe they’re making a sequel. It’s the dream comes true.
Going to replay the original in 100th time.
Try libredirect, it automatically redirects links from twitter, youtube, imgur and many other spying platforms to alternative privacy friendly frontends. It is also very customizable: you can turn only some redirects and configure what particular site to use for each platform.
Somebody should make a standard for non-intrusive, not spying, ethical ads (no clickbaits, no contrasting colors, related to the article, etc. etc.).
Adblocks would have websites that strictly follow these guidelines in a whitelist by default (opt-out).
That’s the middle ground. But, I doubt any big ad company like Google or Meta would push for it, if not against.
The account age is public. Yours is 2 weeks old.