throwa34943way

> Apologize for the Russian takeover that you let happen

if you compare the amount of money allegedly spent by "the russians" VS the amount of money spent by "the americans" themselves, talking about "the russian takeover" of Twitter or Facebook is pure hysteria.

Americans need to stop blaming the Russians for all their problems. Most Russians could not give a damn about US, most are way too busy making hands-meet right now.

The Russians didn't create or foster a divisive environment where everything is about insignificant petty differences. The Russians do not own CNN, ABC, MSNBC or Fox news who are making billions out of exploiting american divisions on every matter possible. The Russians didn't create that society of outrage and entertainment, the Russians didn't shape american society.

> why on earth does the mascot for this thing have to be an underage anime girl in a short skirt?

Because the creators are french and french grow up seeing a lot of anime? because your conception of sexism might be different than the french (I assume you're an american)? because different cultures have different morals? I mean there are naked statues of women everywhere in french cities.

> Because we have too many other tools we also need.

Yes, but secure messaging is a well understood domain I suppose so it's the kind of app that is simple(not easy) to write and most tools compete on UX. A lot of tools on the list at the end have complex domains that are not that well understood by stock developers, or they might require a lot of R&D or actually talking to teams that have a problem to solve.

Furthermore it is extremely difficult to market a lot of these tools to corporations. IM? it's fairly easy.

The situation with secure messaging apps today isn't so different than social networks in the 2000's. It's a formula and it's easier to raise capital on that formula at the moment.

> A real apology requires a clear statement of what you did wrong, why it was wrong, and what exactly you'll do better in the future.

He might have apologized directly to his alleged victims we don't know that. I don't think he should admit anything to anyone else, but to his alleged victims on a personal level.

If I read this forum, it sounds like nobody has never done anything wrong, behaved inappropriately in anyway, ever. I don't believe it one second, harassment(or even assault) isn't just sexual, it can manifest through other sorts of psychological violence at work for instance, and nobody is ever called out for it.

I'm not talking about leniency or understanding, something despicable happened and anybody can judge, but it should not be about one name or one guy everybody can scapegoat to mask their own shortcomings and wrongdoings, in a way to expiate them, as it happens way too often when things like that get public.

Your verge link provides quite a strange link in the comments, which is quite ironic given the circumstances :

> Mr. Obama, Tear Down This Liability Shield

https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/29/mr-obama-tear-down-this-li...

Why bother with check fraud that can get you in trouble, when people will give you millions willingly on crowdfuding website for 3D renderings?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1041610927/znaps-the-9-...

$ 2,438,203

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ritot-the-first-projectio...

$1,401,510

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/shiftwear-customize-your-...

$925,952

And you're not even obligated to fulfil anything, just demonstrate you've "tried" enough!

> Sad people can't be bothered to pay for software they like

They got $50.000 from Mozilla, AKA free software foundations financing commercial software with grants, but what is your opinion on this Mr Burke?

All I say is Mozilla granting $50.000 on the premise of a project being free software is a lot of money given to a commercial product.

> 2. Ive been researching sustainable funding models for open source. Will the maintainers be blogging about the progress and results? Would be useful to learn about what they discover.

Well, just ask $50.000 from Mozilla for an "open source project" grant "like" Caddy got and you're settled for at least a year.

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-3850...

> Open source has to be subsidized

Yep and Caddy was, $50.000 in 2016 from Mozilla

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-3850...

(https://github.com/rsimmons/plinth)

This demo doesn't keep a straight 120 BPM on my machine, it's incapable of holding the rhythm after 10 seconds of playback ( I tried the first patch on the left , Edge browser).

For reference : https://www.audiotool.com/app ( using Flash ).

You just can't do that with the same level of tightness of rhythm on low hardware with web techs today. Flash was bad yet Flash also opened up insane possibilities on the web when it comes to multimedia applications that just can't be matched with Webtechs. ASM.js might fill the gap, but i haven't seen any equivalent yet.

> @mholt is being exceedingly generous to the whingers on this thread, on top of the generosity he's shown in writing Caddy to start with.

Mholt got $50.000 from Mozilla to maintain an open source project as well. It should factor into the discussion.

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-3850...

The only generous people here is Mozilla, especially when they financed a commercial project with open source grants.

Sure, but being granted $50.000 from Mozilla under the claim of supporting an open source project can sustain you for at least 2 years.

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-3850...

Mozilla should have given the money to another project.

Didn't Caddy got like $50.000 from Mozilla to work on the open source version?

Is Mozilla OK with this? Maybe Mozilla should give money on free software projects that plan on remaining free instead next time...

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-3850...

The problem here is the people assuming "diversity" means actual diversity.

Just like "inclusiveness" or "safe space". They do not mean what most people unaware of the political use of these expressions mean. These expressions are politically loaded.

The confusion is orchestrated, on purpose, by the ideologues who redefined these words. Who can say he is against diversity? inclusiveness? safe-spaces, off course people want to be safe! these are positive words. Until you actually understand that a safe space isn't a physical safe space but a ideological safe space, where dissidence is prohibited.

For the "ignorant", they mean one thing, for the ideologues, they have a complete different meaning.

I too was completely fooled by the post-modernist double speak and engaged in the attack of the people who were against these "concepts", I too engaged in witch-hunts, before I truly understood how these words were politically loaded and didn't mean what I thought they meant. It is extremely subtle and cunning. Redefinition of words is an extremely effective and manipulative weapon.

People say, well, keep politics out of work and you'll be fine. But if the internal rules at work use expressions such as diversity, inclusiveness or safe-space, these are politically loaded at first place! your work environment IS adopting the intersectional ideological framework.

To some in the west, China is a land of opportunities, a booming economy with tech giants and a supply chain for the industrial world. To others it's a bloody dictatorship that assassinated thousands of people for the sole crime of speaking their mind in 1989.

To me it's the embodiment of the hypocrisy of the west when it comes to the defense human rights. Let's be frank, we didn't abolish slavery, we just outsourced it to make it more acceptable. It's also a proof that capitalism doesn't need democracy or free-speech to function.