Senal

I was genuinely asking because it wasn't (and still isn't) clear that that's what they meant.

The dairy farm thing makes sense.

Other than cat milk, possibly? I've honestly no idea.

But " just eat/drink plants " will kill a cat right?

You mean cats? Are they not obligate carnivores?

I mean, yes? That's a good summation.

The part where you get to call something "open source" by OSI standards (which I'm pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.

Don't want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn't adhere, because that's how commonly accepted standards work, socially.

Want to make an "open source 2 : electric boogaloo" licence , still no problem.

Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.

Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn't adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.

To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.

Much like the "true" ^1^ open source licences and the other, "closely related, but not quite legit" ^2^ variations.

^1^ As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI

^2^ Any other set of standards that isn't compatible with ^1^

edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable

"It's not libre / free as in freedom so it's wrong".

I think it's more "It's not libre / free as in freedom so it's not open source, don't pretend it is".

The "wrong" part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn't to gain some advantage. I'm this case community contributions.

There's not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.

The book is great as well, there is also a prequel book "The Boy On The Bridge"

You’re never going to get an honest answer to this question,

The honest answer was in the post they were originally replying to.

I will never tolerate ads. I will give up YouTube before I watch ads.

Youtube isn't an existential need.

Ad's or bust isn't a real dichotomy.

Here's another honest suggestion, drop ~~free~~ ad supported Youtube as a product and go full premium.

It'd significantly reduce infrastructure costs and they'd be able to fund it with subscription monies.

You’re never going to get an honest answer to this question,

edit: used the wrong quote at the start

Brazil (1985)

Isn’t this what bootstrapping is for? Manually set up the system to the point it can be taken over by ci/cd

Indeed, was just wondering if there was some industry standard i was missing that was a bit more managed.

No worries if not.

What problems are you struggling with specifically?

You basically just pick a system, for example Forgejo - that’s comparable to a self-hosted github. Which also comes with github-like actions for CI/CD/Building

I can deploy these by hand sure, but is that the only way ?

Let's assume forgejo and woodpecker.

I'd need to spin up each service + the db (postgres probably) for each.

Given i'd not have an SCM system or build pipelines until after they were deployed, am i just doing it by hand and hoping for the best or working with something like ansible, saving the scripts to a folder somewhere and manually running them myself?

How about future maintenance or reproducibility?

I'm fully capable of doing it by hand and not against it, just wasn't sure if there was a commonly used bootstrapping mechanism i wasn't aware of.

Damn, all but 2.

Nearly had me a bingo, oh well.

TL;DR;

Probably a troll, possibly just confused, either way uninteresting

See the end of the post for a reply bingo card.

Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I’m not the one using God to substantiate claims. I hope this is not difficult to understand.

The difficult to understand part is where you are referencing things that didn't happen.

Perhaps i'm misunderstanding though, so if you point out where i was using god as justification that should clear it up nicely.

No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?

Again, point at where this happened, if you keep referencing things without related references it's going to seem like you are making things up.

At least here you provided a quote, though unrelated. it's a step in the right direction.

Just in case you meant to use that quote, nothing in the "Just to pre-empt...." quote mentions relative "real"ness.

Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God’s gift to “rational thinking”… yet their (supposed) “rational thinking” falls apart rather quickly under investigation.

No claim to more rationality than you, no claim to atheism either, citation please.

Not big on history, are you?

Vague and fallacious. especially given i was responding to this passage of yours :

Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.

You really are obsessed with God’s existence (or lack thereoff), aren’t you? I guess I had a hard time following because it’s not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn’t it?

Again, no assertion of atheism on my part, feel free to quote the part where i did.

The only reference to the existence/non existence of a god is in relation to the original post i responded to , it's not a point i added to the conversation.

But i suspect you know this.

This is my reply bingo card ( if you so choose to make one )

• Bad faith arguments
• References to things that didn't happen, with either no actual reference or one that doesn't relate to the "argument" being made
• Fallacies in place of actual points
• Personal attacks
• Claims of my devout atheism, again with no references or proof
• Complaints that i'm pointing out any of the above, but without substantive refutations
• Equivalent of "I'm not arguing with someone who clearly doesn't understand "
• lol
• lmao