Egypt, Chinese, Phoenicians, Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, Ancient Israelites, Sumerians, Mayan, Incan and a host of others predated the Romans and documented the process only to be overtaken by the next civilization. The Romans were aggregators of ideas and took the tools from their conquered peoples using what worked and abandoning what didn't. It is highly doubtful as to the claim.
> penalties for lobbyists and politicians who back this kind of thing
You want to make it illegal for people to propose and vote for policies that you don't like? What if they beat you to it and pass a law that stops you from getting your law passed?
The idea that a part of the government could be unchangeable even if 100% of the people in the country oppose it, seems not just dystopian but philosophically absurd.
As a compromise, though, how about having some rules about which laws the government is allowed to make, and requiring something like a two-thirds majority to be able to change those rules.
Then you could have a rule saying that the government can't make any laws that cause the people to not be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Actually you're right, maybe that won't be sufficient.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but the facts on the ground are that the constitution is broken all the time without anyone being punished enough to stop them from doing it again. Unless you outline penalties or protections such as qualified immunity for defending the constitution it becomes meaningless.
Swapping the blue circle for black would give them the alignment they seek. Filling the full circle so there is no gap between would be a nice step as well.
I fully believe the EEE problem still exists at Microsoft but fail to see how this feature is a part of that. This has been something OSS maintainers have asked for for ages.
"sponsor-only repositories, that is, private repositories that only sponsors will get access to" is this open source? Will this help open source? I don't believe so. This fragments the open source community, and creates a paywall for innovation. Further it restricts the ability to enforce open source licensing. Where is the protection for code behind a paywall and which uses copyleft source.
Eh? There have been private repositories for ages. I don't see how licenses have anything to do with it either. You don't need to have an FOSS license just to host on GitHub.
Embrace, join the open source community, and buy github. Extend, add exclusive features private repositories which do not notify copywrite holders when packages use copyleft software which mandates publishing source.
Extend, add repositories which profit from copyleft software which mandates publishing source, but github enables the thieves to hide and exploit the original developers work.
Extinguish, community now works with the thieves and contributes to parasitic repos instead of open source repositories.
Private repositories and paywall repositories are absolutely not open source.
Github must have independent auditors review private repositories and paywall repositories to prevent theft of opensource or be treated as part of the theft itself.
He paid for a ticket, he was seated. Airline is in the wrong overbooking. Everything that happened after that is on them.
Refusing to deboard and getting injured isn't a smart idea in the real world.
Imagine this was any other industry. You can't rent your apartment complex to more people than can fit and have the police shoot their dog and flash bang their kids when they refuse to sleep under a bridge that night because occupancy rates are higher than you thought and you needed to evict them.
It would be poetic justic if he did, and it merely inconvenienced him, rather than having him brutalized. I walk out if I am not seen within 20 minutes of my appointment and drop the doctor if it happens twice. Doctors who don't respect your time aren't qualified to treat you.
Ah, the old appeasement trap. The censormongers who demanded their collection leave Spotify aren't going to come back now that Spotify has caved. And the people who wanted Spotify to have Joe are going to be pissed off and leave. This is a no win scenario now for Spotify. I have never listened to old Joe, but I can tell you I have paid Spotify for the last time. My small contribution doesn't mean anything in the context of their user counts, but if they were going to fold they should have done it immediately so they didn't lose the first half of content.
