Consultancies don’t exist for improving companies; they exist to make the rich richer while giving some semblance of things like fiduciary duty.

That’s fair. I don’t disagree with licensing comments necessarily. I think users doing it to provide the basis for a legal argument is fine. I think my pushback comes from my lack of trust in any of these users actually acting on their license which could be construed as victim-shaming. I’m hung up on the follow-through which careful analysis like yours really highlights.

Calling a license by anything other than its name and stated purpose is something I’d dare to call mislabeling. If CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 decides to add “anti-commercial-AI” then and only then is it not mislabeling. That’s like me calling the US copyrights of the books sitting next to me “anti-bitfucker” licenses. They have nothing to do with you at this point in time so it is misleading for me to claim otherwise.

While you are correct that lemmy itself does not add a license and many instances do not add a license, it’s not as simple as “the user notifies [you] must abides by [their] licenses.” Jurisdiction matters. The Fediverse host content is pulled from matters. Other myriad factors matter. As you correctly pointed out, there is no precedence for any of this so as I pointed out unless you’re willing to go to court and can prove damages it is actually useless.

I feel like a better analogy is someone who signs their text messages which is a more recent problem than people with obnoxiously long forum signatures.

They’re mislabeling the license too. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 has nothing to do with “anti-commercial-AI.” It provides some terms for using content and, in theory if OP is willing to take someone to court, should provide some basis if the license is being abused. Until there’s actual precedence, though, it’s debatable whether or not sucking up CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 content is a breach of the license. For it to actually matter, someone needs to demonstrably prove 1) CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 content was sucked up by AI, 2) it was their content and it was licensed at the time, 3) the terms of the license were violated, and 4) other legal shit that will pop up during the course of the litigation. “Someone” has to be someone with deep fucking pockets willing to go the distance in many international jurisdictions.

Depends on the context and how conservative you are (in the sense of tradition for tradition, not politics or anything else). Tradition holds that you call someone at that level of elected office by their previous title. If you want to break with tradition, you can call them whatever you want. You didn’t sign any legally binding agreements that say you have to call someone a fancy title. This holds for judges, doctors, and other people that think random chance and living their life gives them a special name that you don’t get.

I used to work in a municipal city water department. Part of its job was to deal with some chemical blooms from bad waste disposal. While I am not a water science person, I trusted the water science people who told me it was safe and got to tour some of the cool filtration things.

I didn’t drink the water because water in that area has a “green” taste that’s hard to describe unless you’ve had it. Totally fine to drink, just personal preference. Most people I know gave me a lot of shit for it.

Unless you’re limiting yourself to very terse responses or having someone else (ideally random) write all your online content, you’re still very much at risk.

It’s really interesting that you picked his meme side project as the canceled band instead of As I Lay Dying.

This is incorrect. You can relicense your code to whatever you want if you and all the license holders agree to do so. You can’t unlicense the old code, though, and if there are more license holders than just you, it’s probably more complicated than it’s worth.

have to rewrite anything AGPL

I’m skeptical this would actually hold up in court because if you wrote the original code and then wrote the new code, it would not be clean room design and would most likely be breaking the terms of the original license.

I’m anyone and I’m not stunned. You write quite a bit and get absolutely nowhere while attacking anyone who calls that out.

Which of these is an example of bootlicking?

Bad mental health doesn’t necessarily mean scumbag on the internet 🙃

The same is true of Twitter, Bluesky, Mastodon, and Lemmy. There are pockets of shitty users everywhere. I don’t think it’s endemic to Reddit. I do think their moderation fuckery and homogenization of the top subreddits has made it much more obvious there.

Why are 1 and 3 the correct options? Why are they even correct? Why is 2 wrong? You don’t seem to realize any of the foundation you’re building on and you’ve done nothing other than say “if I provide evidence,” that’s enough.

Here’s a thought experiment. I take you into a closed room, put purple film over a window, and tell you the sky is purple. You’ve now got irrefutable proof that the sky is purple. But wait, you say! I can go outside and find different evidence, so clearly having evidence alone is not enough. We could even sidestep the problem by saying that the sky is colorless; it’s the refraction of the light that makes the color. Different frame; different counter.

So why are you right? Why is your frame correct?

If it is so self-evident, you should be able to explain why your faith in evidence trumps anyone else’s faith in anything else. You don’t know why you believe what you believe and you’re completely incapable (so far, based on the evidence you’ve provided) of doing anything beyond “James Randi says it so it must be true.” You seem to blindly believe anything anyone in a position of authority states (courts, insurance always right provided they have a modicum of evidence to support their claim). You pound the “evidence trumps everything” pulpit yet can’t explain why, logically, that might make sense.

You remind me of the evangelicals I’m also not a fan of.

You can’t explain logic so I’m not sure you have an understanding of the arguments you’re attempting to make. I’m not seeing any justification other than “I think it’s it right.” I’ve seen no counters to the quantitative philosophical propositions and a general lack of understanding of any of the things that underpin your belief system. You still haven’t explained why your system is right.

You haven’t shown that an insurance decision is correct. You also didn’t show that a court decision is right. You’re not seeing the forest for the trees.

Your faith is that evidence trumps all. That is a baseless claim unless you can prove it without the structures of evidence-based discourse. You are using logic to prove your statements which is logically equivalent to “god said so.” You argue your beliefs trump theirs; you are equivalent using your foundation. Your religion is logic which, as I have pointed out many times without comment from you, is just as made up as any religion and more importantly has the introspective capabilities to prove so.

This is a fairly straightforward epistemological argument; I’ve run out of ways to say it. Good luck!

All of this continues to go past you. You want to attack the metaphysical for its belief system yet you completely miss when you make the same logical leaps for yours. How can insurance companies prove something? Why are they right? If a court makes a decision, is that the correct one? Prove it. Only you can’t use logic or anything that comes from logical systems because, based on your attacks on religion, you’re not allowed to use the faith to prove the faith.

You’re very focused on religion and seem to be missing all of the points about logic.

not saying that … pretty agnostic

Cool, we’re on the same page.

If someone makes a claim… it needs… evidence

This is problematic without a rigorous definition of evidence. I’m assuming you mean something along the lines of repeatable and independently verifiable since you won’t take a claim at face value. If you’re going to rigorously define evidence, you’re going to need to create a system that can’t contradict itself. Per your quotes, either there is a ball in my hand or there isn’t.

This is called a consistent system. We agree on a set of axioms that we will achieve results from. If we have a consistent system and build a bunch of results on top of that, eventually we’ll run into things that are true but we cannot prove. We know this because of a famous result I’ve already mentioned. In other words, we must take central results on faith. A common one that, several decades ago, was met with ridicule because it was “so illogical” mathematicians had “suspend reality in order for it to make any sense” is the axiom of choice.

In other words, you can’t use logic and reason to say those that believe in religion are idiots because you have just as much proof as they do (just faith) if we accept the basic axioms that drive our logical system.

doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist… isn’t circular logic

You’re conflating a tautology with circular reasoning. Circular reasoning boils down to “A because B; B because A;” and you’ve said “A because A” without any support for A. The lack of something in your hand is not necessary and sufficient to prove the ball’s existence. The only claim we can make is that your hand is empty.

Here is a metaphysical claim for you to chew on: it is possible to know whether or not it is possible to prove a claim.