Find in page returned one result for “reticulum,” and it was yours. Sometimes everything doesn’t federate for everyone at the same time.

Anyway my point wasn’t that it can right now, just that necessity is the mother of invention/innovation. I’ll look into reticulum at some point, I just finished vacuuming and mopping after work, and need to clean myself up. Thanks for mentioning it to me.

It can.

Good news! They want to move PC to saas!

Analytical data they sell to a very authoritarian government that verges on totalitarian.

This is going to end up affecting mostly house-bound poor people.

Please precede it with “Heath!”

That’s part of what I picked as a teaser:

Start with what the GPL actually prohibits. It does not prohibit keeping source code private. It imposes no constraint on privately modifying GPL software and using it yourself. The GPL’s conditions are triggered only by distribution. If you distribute modified code, or offer it as a networked service, you must make the source available under the same terms. This is not a restriction on sharing. It is a condition placed on sharing: if you share, you must share in kind. The requirement that improvements be returned to the commons is not a mechanism that suppresses sharing. It is a mechanism that makes sharing recursive and self-reinforcing. The claim that imposing contribution obligations on users of a commons undermines sharing culture does not hold together logically. The contrast with the MIT license clarifies the point. Under MIT, anyone may take code, improve it, and close it off into a proprietary product. You can receive from the commons without giving back. If Ronacher calls this structure “more share-friendly,” he is using a concept of sharing with a specific directionality built in: sharing flows toward whoever has more capital and more engineers to take advantage of it. The historical record bears this out. In the 1990s, companies routinely absorbed GPL code into proprietary products—not because they had chosen permissive licenses, but because copyleft enforcement was slack. The strengthening of copyleft mechanisms closed that gap. For individual developers and small projects without the resources to compete on anything but reciprocity, copyleft was what made the exchange approximately fair. The creator of Flask knows this distinction. If he elides it anyway, the argument is not naïve—it is convenient.

It was for your benefit, not mine. I read it yesterday.

https://sopuli.xyz/post/42263119

It seems to be worse to spring forward, is the point. It doesn’t align with the most prevalent circadian rhythm in humans, although there are exceptions. I guess those people are just sol regardless, which is regrettable.

It’s so they can make more money more people die because of time changes, anyway.

Hospital and factory workers first shift usually starts at 6:00-7:00.

People have serious health effects because of DST, too

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/7-things-to-know-about-daylight-saving-time

I also prefer solar noon, but standard time is close enough, and I already said I’m fine with splitting the difference.

Religion makes a good person good and a bad person bad. Most people are a mixture of light and darkness.

Marjoram and thyme, maybe bay leaves in white meat/pork dishes.

And added caffeine to make it more addictive. And union busting.

https://www.thehealthy.com/family/relationships/covert-narcissist/

It’s who I think it is.

I’m okay with that!

Tbf, 5:00 sunset on standard time is not ideal for me either. But a lot more acceptable than having to suddenly adjust sleep because capitalists want to make more money.