But EU does not pay farmers to farm efficiently and produce more food but does it to keep inefficient ones going so not much to do with actual food security.

Google a long time ago did that, but I assume those sites are where they get money from and so they removed that choice.

I would note that Steve Jobs would have probably supported removing the F keys.

See the NeXT keyboards - no F keys. http://xahlee.info/kbd/NeXT_computer_keyboard.html

The ones with the command key beneath the space were nice - except for the help key being so prominent.

What's wild is they STILL haven't built a mouse with two switches for clicking. Right clicking is on all their mice/trackpads faked with things like touch sensors. They are just dead set against it for some reason even though it does actually mean it's impossible to play something like a modern FPS* with a Magic Mouse.

* With the default control scheme anyways.

Thankfully 3rd party devices are supported otherwise I'd have gone insane with just one button.

What if you were Ukrainian?

Seems consistent. Ukrainian soldiers are performing life saving missions i.e. defending their citizens from an unprovoked attack.

then the military would also act life-saving, since they are defending the attacked country

Now that is different.

Access gets used for a shared DB and that is quite easy to corrupt. It is much more cost effective to have that in a proper central database (I supse SQLLite is better here as well)

Excel is also a shared DB: it has supported multiple concurrent users accessing and modifying the same spreadsheet for decades.

ANd that gets rather looked on here as the authors being deceitful and not really Open Source doing a bait and switch.

I've been working on a software package I'm hoping to release in a few months... I'm really torn on either split FLOSS with commercial extensions, or just going fully private... I was planning on a pretty generous free tier, but hoping to make a bit on the side from commercial customers.

It's a bit of a niche as it is, so that's going to be rough in any kind of pricing model, as a large part of that niche is either homebrew types and the other commercial industry that will likely require some more integrations and customization.

You could dual license as well, so it’s GPL or AGPL for personal, OSS, or academic use, but requires a paid for commercial license for commercial use.

I suggest GPL or AGPL because their copyleft clauses make them hostile towards platform providers who might otherwise seek to profit from your work without paying.

Platform providers can take (A)GPL code as-is and totally profit from it without paying.

As long as they keep releasing sources of their own modifications -if they ever do any-, the rest is fair play.

Yeah, but the copyleft makes anything they build around it a derivative work that they also have to release sources for - especially with AGPL. Most don’t want to do that because that’s where their IP lives.

Not all open source licenses are copyleft licenses (e.g., MIT very much isn’t), but at the very least copyleft licenses make it much harder to exploit open source code commercially without giving back in some way, whether that’s code, or cash for a commercial license.

Not perfect, by any means, but definitely an improvement over more permissive licenses.

I am aware of how much I’m starting to sound a bit like RMS in my old age.

I wholeheartedly agree. Licensing is a complex topic of which I've read a good deal, and even within the Open Source communities there are usually a lot of misconceptions, so I like chiming in with less commonly pointed but very practical effects of it all, in case it helps someone to learn a tiny bit that day.

In this case the provider would of course have to comply with the AGPL and release their modifications as you mention, but it's important to note that No FOSS license protects at all against, for example, just offering the code as a service. It's the exact reason why Mongodb changed licenses and then a stream of commercial products started to change into "Source-Available" licenses in the recent past.

It would be dual license effectively... the base version AGPL and the Commercial version with additional functionality. Though I'd considered BSL and alternatives... and as mentioned, just closed/commercial only.

Or for Lisp you might as well start with Emacs Lisp - you are going to use it for a decent environment unless you have the Common Lisp IDEs which you have to pay for or Racket.

Eh, no. You have Elisp+cl-lib but SBCL too, and you can use Sly wth SBCL.

Of Lem with SBCL+Quicklisp:

https://lem-project.github.io/usage/common_lisp/

Huge tip: if you use MCCLIM, install Ultralisp first and (ql-quickload 'mcclim) later: it will give you a big speed boost. Big, not as the ones from Phoronix. Actually big. From 'I can almost see redrawing on a really old ass netbook' to 'snappy as TCL/Tk' under SBCL.

https://ultralisp.org/

As you can see, you don't need to pay thousands of dollars.

For Scheme, S9 just targets R4RS but as a start it's more than enough, and for SICP you can install Emacs+Geiser+chicken Scheme and from any Linux/BSD: distro command prompt, you run:

       sudo  chicken-install srfi-203
       sudo chicken-install srfi-216

And, as a ~/.csirc file:

      (import scheme)
      (import (srfi 203))
      (import (srfi 216))

To run SCM stuff for SICP:

       csi yourfile.scm 

or

       chicken-csi yourfile.scm

Done. Get the SICP PDF and start doing SICP. You can use Emacs+Geiser with

         M-x install RET geiser-chicken

 if you are lazy. You can install the SICP book with

        M-xpackage-install RET sicp

and read it from

       M-x info RET

and do it everything from withing Emacs by running

      M-x geiser 

(pick chicken as the interpreter). Save your Emacs settings. Done.

The problem is that the social media companies have not been dealing with abusive posts of various sources. Governments can't take action against the bad posters are they are from another Government (and in some cases are employed by that government to cause trouble). Thus Governments have to take actions which they can control, unfortunately these actions will affect more than the bad abusers.

You assume your premise. No the government actually doesn't 'have to' take action about mean things on the internet. The UK has such an obsession with regulating what is, essentially, politeness.

While I don't particularly care for the UK's approach to these things, I can't help but be shocked at how many governments seem to all of a sudden have dreamed up the same idea. Independently, I'm sure.

I suppose the US is the unique one really, when it comes to a history of protecting certain types of speech. They've never really regulated (what I would call) politeness between people in any form.

The UK, and I assume much of Europe, criminalizes truly petty levels of speech. For example, it's illegal to insult someone and cause them 'alarm' or 'distress' in the street.

Thus the non-technical populace see rudeness on the internet as the result of some kind of wild west situation that the government needs to control, to bring it in line with the rest of the public realm.

This should be made a problem for the social media companies (which it largely has, hence all the age verification fiasco), not absolutely everyone on the internet.